Michelle Bachelet: a Pinochet-hating a Soviet apparatchik

10/18/2006 | self

[Bonaparte]

[Bonaparte]: "Are you suggesting that taking up arms to install communism in Chile is a legitimate function of the Chilean president under a democratic system?"

[Non-Sequitur]: " He was elected, was he not?"
____________________________________________________________

Thanks, NS.

You just made my case for me.

[lqclamar]

The average Pinochet critic around here tends to be either extremely idealistic or extremely uninformed about what really happened in 1973. You can still talk to them in a discussion and guide them to the correct facts and information. Even Pinochet's most adamant critics around here are now conceding that Allende was a truly rotten character. And that means we're getting somewhere with them on these threads.

Not so with Non-Sequitur. He's the only one I've seen so far who is sticking adamantly to the "Allende was a legitimate ruler" line. This tells me he's either not all that bright, or he's a closet marxist troll who regrets the overthrow of Allende and considers it a setback to his movement. Or maybe it's a little bit of both.

[Bonaparte]

Another possibility is that he's just having people on -- IOW, is immature.

Have a look at his screen name.

Whatever the case may be, he's not worth any more of my time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Conservative dictators can transition back to democracy, and often have free markets even in the middle of their dictatorship. They are not driven by a wild eyed utopian ideology so they have no global designs. Instead they come to power for reasons of security, such as defeating a more evil threat like marxism and stabilizing their countries. Pinochet, Franco in Spain, and Salazar in Portugal all filled this role and became key U.S. allies during the Cold War.

Considering that it seems the Chilean government was after Pinochet for tax evasion on the money he lined his pockets with while in power, I'd say there were additional reasons.

If your preferred form of government is a dictatorship then fine, I won't argue with you. Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, all were anti-democracy and none of them installed democratic rule of law. In each case it was a successor which accomplished that. I must admit that I find this preference for strong men somewhat puzzling on a conservative forum, and wonder if that's what you would rather see here.

[Non-Sequitur]

You just made my case for me.

Don't like elected governments much, do you?

[Non-Sequitur]

...except for people who actually wanted a Castro-style workers paradise. I'm beginning to think you are one of those.

Then you are a fool, or else you have not read what I've posted. There is a difference between you and I. I would oppose a left wing dictatorship just as forcefully as I would oppose a right wing one and I have said so continuously. You, on the other hand, would embrace dictatorship so long as it was right wing. I hope and pray that people who think the way you do never rise to positions of power in this country.

[lqclamar]

Don't like elected governments much, do you?

I don't believe he expressed a preference either way.

You, OTOH, have demonstrated an unusual fondness for Hitlers and Allendes...just as long as their reigns of terror are stamped with the approval of an electoral plurality.

[lqclamar]

I would oppose a left wing dictatorship just as forcefully as I would oppose a right wing one

And yet you don't. When offered an opportunity to condemn the terrorist-coddling marxist Allende regime your only response is to proclaim its legitimacy since it was "elected." Same goes for Hitler, by extrapolation. As I said, your colors are bleeding through and red is strong among them.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't believe he expressed a preference either way.

I think you've made you strong support of Pinochet and Franco and Salazar and their tactics quite clear.

You, OTOH, have demonstrated an unusual fondness for Hitlers and Allendes...just as long as their reigns of terror are stamped with the approval of an electoral plurality.

Hitler did away with the democratic institutions he used to gain power in the first place while Allende had not taken matters to the next step. Would he have? We'll never know. But in any case I think my preference is more for Constitutions and democracy rather than Allende or Hitler.

[lqclamar]

I think you've made you strong support of Pinochet and Franco and Salazar and their tactics quite clear.

Franco, Pinochet, and Salazar were great allies of the United States and the free world in the fight against communism. Your persistent attacks upon them only shows your sympathies with the marxist vermin they defeated.

Hitler did away with the democratic institutions he used to gain power in the first place while Allende had not taken matters to the next step.

Not that you are honest or intelligent enough to admit it, but the Chilean Chamber of Deputies found otherwise...

"[Allende] as usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority"

"[Allende] has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans"

"[Allende] has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security"

"That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government."

Approved August 23, 1973.

[lqclamar]

Another possibility is that he's just having people on -- IOW, is immature.

I do detect a bit of that in him, but I still think he has an unusual fondness for communists as long as they declare themselves "democratically elected." He probably defends Chavez and Ortega with similar fervor. You're right though. he isn't worth any more attention.

[Lurker]

Sorry we can't offer you a police state.

I live in a Republic. How's your country governed?

L

[lqclamar]

He wishes it was a little more like Allende's.

[indcons]

Thanks for the ping. I was excessively harsh on the General initially. Pinochet was no angel but his actions saved Chile from worse conditions.

Accordingly, I have changed my opinion over the last week or so.