>only country in South America that exterminated communism also happens to be the only one that isn't a pile of shit
how do leftists explain this?
>>71356037
>exterminated communism
And then elected Michelle Bachelet, a commie affiliated with the Foro de São Paulo. All that work for nothing.
>>71356131
I don't get the Helicopter meme when it comes to Pinochet
What's the significants of the Helicopter?
>>71356037
>only country in South America that exterminated communism
I feel seriously offended by this
>>71356778
Read a fucking book, you nigger.
>>71356880
Tell me or fuck off
>>71356778
His death squads from throw political prisoners from helicopters
>>71356872
You're not a country
Can't be a country until you have your own flag
>>71356872
FLUTE BANDS
>>71356515
>>71356037
pero que economía más grande!
>>71356872
you guys did it for 7 years tops, and Chile was 17 years... Also, you guys are bad at war, so there is no saying for you guys there
>>71357061
>1990 was 7 Years ago
What ever is left in the jungle are nothing but glorified Narco bodyguards
>>71356619
>>71356037
it isnt that good 2bh
>>71357281
>>71357174
>>71356037
>only country in South America that exterminated communism
>>71356037
We will shine once again
>>71357198
you live in the poor part of town, you fucking flaite, you need to live in Las Condes to have it decent there
>>71356037
It only improved when he re-nationalized some industries. Plus, he did literally everything he accused Allende of doing, in addition to much, much worse.
>>71356037
>>only country in South America that exterminated communism
also only country in south america with an active and operative "Partido Comunista"
>>71356037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9IHUhwNOKM
>>71356778
His men used to kill political enimies by shooting them before throwing them out of a helicopter.
>>71357036
you still want a pathway to the sea?
>>71356778
he was basically the cia guy before bane and throwing people out of aircrafts became popular
i often wonder if before he killed people he would whisper in their ears "you're a big guy"
>>71357465
Are you fucking kidding me?
>>71357533
>shooting a man before throwing him out of a helicopter
He was a great leader RIP
>>71357536
nah, that whole debate it's only a way for the president to win some popularity and approval of the lowest income class and it's not gonna solve any problems in Bolivia
>>71357174
We still think you're great ally chile. Pls teach bundeswehr how to into army, like we teached you.
We would be of much thanks.
>>71357643
Every country in Europe also has a communist party, even America has a communist party. Its a byproduct of freespeech. They mean nothing.
>>71357036
your flag looks like a fruity snack
>>71357533
Why would you shoot a man before throwing him out of a helicopter?
>>71357369
This guy would make the perfect emperor of mankind.
If only a man could live forever...
>>71357907
unfortunately they have power here
>>71357848
at least you know that you suck at war
>>71357909
among other things
Chile has shitty looking cities. Even their black neighbors to the east have nicer looking cities.
I like this thread, you beaners are okay in my book.
Can one of you translate what is said in this video?
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1460677488737.webm
>>71358077
>Bolivia
>Going to war
lol
>>71358154
holy shit, this guy is fucking crazy
>>71357362
>implying communists wanted Paraguay
>>71356037
The US foreign policy in Latin America revolves around shitting all over any communist or socialist or indigenous movement. The US knows that corporate colonialism ends where socialism and communism begins and they use just about any means necessary to halt it including coups, CIA shady shit, funding terrorism, "accidentally" arming drug cartels, embargoes, and so on until whatever country is tryin to break from IS hegemony collapses. Weak governments in Latin America translate directly into US corporate access to lcheap labor and cheap resources, Corporations control US politics, and as a result Us foreign policy favors corporate multinational business interests, regardless of how profoundly immoral it is to overthrow the government of latinoguay for the fifth time in a century.
>>71358333
high energy
>>71358293
you guys lost a 2v1
>>71358434
And we are truly thankful for that.
>Based Chile giving us intel during the Falklands to let us massacre more subhuman argies
I really need to visit, I imagine the cost of flights are atrocious to get from England to South America are atrocious though. Same reason I haven't banged any thai trannies yet.
>>71357533
they were big guys
>>71356872
your banks and economy are cucked af
>>71358434
But most of our cheap labor comes from Mexico and we've never done a coup there. Yeah, we conquered them once, but we gave them some money and told them to stop crying.
Venezuela has been insulated from American corporatism while Chile was ruled by a CIA-backed dictator. Which country is it easier to buy toilet paper in?
And are you going to lecture us on morality when you can't even name their countries?
>>71358515
Bolivia lost every armed conflict he has been involved
>>71358747
You should fight Paraguay and see what happens.
>>71358434
leftist college cuck answer on why shit is "terrible" in South America without studying colonialism properly.
>>71358665
Had a brain fart halfway through that post evidently.
>>71357655
You're a big dictator
>>71357479
lol, punch the commies
>>71358056
They do too here. Oldest one has been around since the 20s and was involved in the coup. Fucking degenerates
>>71358665
lol, hey, it's ok, sex tourism is a thing now
>>71358771
It happened already. Somehow they both lost.
>>71358434
The us involvement narrative is a meme. At a base level, you're claiming that the local populations have no agency and are defenseless against a few hundred people thousands of miles away.
Furthermore, in the case of chile, the sole involvement of the US in the coup was basically funding the taxi owners as they went on strike and alerting the military when the communists did something obvious.
>>71359110
>Somehow they both lost.
how?
>>71358771
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Chaco
already donde
>>71359076
I'd be going to Peru for a proper holiday and cultural reasons, not to bang trannies. Trannies is pretty much the only reason to visit Thailand, though, unless you enjoy getting beaten to death and then having your head caves in with a shovel like happened to that female british girl a few years ago (after being gang raped ofcourse).
I just mention Thailand because the same reason I haven't visited anywhere other than Europe/Turkey is because the flight costs.
>>71359110
>they both lost
paraguay doubled their territory after the war
>>71358665
What goes around, comes around.
>>71359166
The war of El Chaco (Also known as the war of the naked soldiers).
One of them was supported by the Standard Oil and the other by Shell company.
So in the end, only the companies got any gains. As for both countries the only got their soldiers killed.
>>71356037
They're lefties right now.
>>71359307
>cultural reasons
flute bands everywhere
>>71356037
Argentina is better
South America really liked its military dictators.
>Argentina
>Peron
>Learned from Der Führer himself
>Not wanting based Peron and qt Eva as your rulers
What happened to you Argentina?
>>71359450
It's the same like after we got Antofagasta and Tarapaca. Only the British got the best part of the cake.
>>71359288
>>71359110
Huh. I remember the Chaco War but I guess I thought it was Bolivia and someone else.
>>71359166
Bolivia kept the best territory, Paraguay kept more territory, both of them were still landlocked, both lost a lot of guys (Paraguay lost fewer but they were still a little short on dudes after their ill-starred attempt to conquer Uruguay by way of Argentina and Brazil).
And there wasn't even any oil.
>>71358154
(I don't know what he was saying but...)
"This one is for mediocres, who on Saturday, joined the more mediocres, the unmentionable househusbands.
We are great, Viva Chile Mierda
>>71359640
Peron was the worst thing that happened to Argentina
>>71358434
We also don't want to share a land border with another major world power. Keep funding the cartels to keep everyone else dependent on the USA for survival.
If a strong nationalist movement took over in Mexico, and completely wiped out the Cartels, it would be really badass, but the border would would be crazy dangerous.
If it was an Atzlan movement there would defs be war.
And that would be super badass.
>>71357533
It was for the Greater Good. Sometimes the corrupt must die that the pure might prosper.
Or maybe it has to do with this lady running the show for most of the past decade?
>>71359960
why?
>>71358896
UUUU
U
U
U
>>71360063
keep your Tau shit out of the Imperium, you xeno degenerate...
>>71359575
What part of Argentina?
Because they have like three more times the amount of mapuches that we have here.
>>71357533
Perhaps the bictims wondered why they would shoot a man before throwing him out of a helicopter
>>71359555
We have diablada, too.
also nice trips
>>71358154
its probably too out of context to undertand the first part, the song is common banter for divegrass matches
backstory: he (rafa budu) is a music/comedian that performs in the metro and buses, he frequently changes songs too more popular ones and mixes them to a furious guitar strum ... being extremly random and erratic while playing is his main gag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpipgY221sw
>>71359116
A few hundred million people with a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the stronger military on earth, combined with a massive and invasive corporate landscape that is not above invasive harm to get what it wants can keep a population that's never had time to get over Spanish colonialism subjugated, yes.
As for chile specifically the US has been aggressively trying to control its affairs since at least 1891, as it tried to push out British interests and control. This continued until the US had almost complete control of chile in the form of almost blanket corporate control over industry in chile in the early 20th century. After World War Two it got even worse, with the US foisting the Alessandri government on the country to prevent leftist (aka socialist/communists that would have renationalized the country's economy at the expense of invasive Us corps) Allende from taking over. The Us backed government then enacted tariff reductions that made it even easier for Us corps and caused them to take even more control. Eventually Despite constant US agitation and influence Allende won the presidency, and 3 years later the US stirred up a coup the deposed him. I could go on re: US support for Pinochet, a piece of shit dictator, and onward, but why bother, if you still think the US isn't involved invasive lot in Latin America you're a bigger dindu than the blackest nigger that ever lived.
>>71356571
thats what happens when you give and promote woman voting
every time i hear "yo vote por la bachele porque necesitamos mas lideres mujeres" brings me closer to the edge and i'm about to break
>>71360556
>We have diablada too
good for you, i don't know how demons and "el diablo" is related to your culture but ok
>>71362977
You know, if we let Islam win and just pretended to believe it, we could get women back in their place. Things were a lot simpler before the redpill. Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
Why are South Americans such lazy fucking leeches that love socialism?
Is it the native blonde?
>>71359960
Peron himself wasn't that bad, the problem is modern "Peronism" wich is full of corrupt marxists that somehow keep getting votes. Not a bad leader, but far from being the best, I even prefer Videla
Speaking of eliminating communism
>>71363471
Because they are on the receiving end of capitalism's dick all the time, the only way out for them long term is nationalistic communism or socialism. The only thing that's stopped them is the US shitting in its mouth every time they get close or elect q legitimate government that doesn't suck US dick.
>>71363471
>Is it the native blonde
wut
>>71363749
I second this wut.
>>71363530
>>71363693
Truly south americas number one commie remover
Argentina and Uruguay are also easily one of the best countries in the world when it comes to standards of living, given you're not a nigger, as they're also not coddlers/enablers.
>>71356037
can someone provide the screen cap about a mother posting on some forum about her son and his pol folder full of Pinochet ?
>>71356037
>only one that isn't a pile of shit
Hey, I resent that.
Chile is alright but we are wealthier and more developed than Chile, they don't even have full literacy. And they come here for our free universities.
I agree that communism is cancer though. We patented those helicopter rides but I guess Pinochet is more famous internationally. Our guys fucked up invading the Malvinas.
>>71357909
Very similar to ours ...
I REQUIRE MORE PINOCHET MAYMAYS
>>71365077
>Malvinas
>>71362410
Just watched like 30 mins of this guy, he's amazing
>>71356037
>exterminated communism
>not knowing about the radical left movement growing in Chile
this ignorant gringo heh
All hail Pinochet, who freed us from the marxist yoke
>>71362415
>A few hundred million people with a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the stronger military on earth, combined with a massive and invasive corporate landscape that is not above invasive harm to get what it wants .....
Only a tiny fraction of the population is involved in the intelligence agency and a smaller subset of that is invested in American. The only success they could possibly have is through local intermediaries.
Any commercialization effort depends on LOCALS. At best the CIA has an auxiliary rule.
>can keep a population that's never had time to get over Spanish colonialism subjugated, yes.
They had over a century to rectify their problems. You don't see poland sitting on its ass after german and russian imperialism destroyed their country twice. You're just contriving excuses to justify your opionions.
>Eventually Despite constant US agitation and influence Allende won the presidency, and 3 years later the US stirred up a coup the deposed him.
Allende didn't receive a mandate, he only assumed power because a fraction of the centrist party allied with him. Furthermore, there allegiance switched almost immediately.
Furthermore, his land reform policies and constant inflationary measures hardly made him popular. Beyond the declining demand for copper exports, his policies fueled the economic decline of chile.
> I could go on re: US support for Pinochet, a piece of shit dictator, and onward
Pinochet was a boy scout compared to just about every communist leader ever, and his ascension to power had very little to do with the US.
You just want to play a game where you can pretend Allende won with huge popular support, was widely successful, and was then put down by the big mean USA so you can equate the US to the USSR.
>>71357533
was getting caught by gravity part of htere plan?
>>71357881
chile is top tier south american country
>>71357918
shits and giggles? ya nazi bastard ya!
how dare you throw off da juice! ebil
>>71358154
I love beaners, in there own country
>>71365900
Rinse and repeat.
>>71356956
Helihoax, it never happened
>>71359640
Perón was a Venezuela-tier leader.
He ruined the Republic with populism.
The world was coming out of WWII.
Argentina's Central Bank coffers were full of gold from all the agricultural exports and loans we made to Britain.
He won the Presidency at the right time and squandered all that money on gibmedats while ruining the economy with his socialist whore wife.
Any good books about pinochet
>>71358434
yes, I hear you, it was the jews, good post
>>71358665
seriously, chile seems really nice, maybe even some nice euro women there, amongst thespics
and business friendly
>>71359307
>female british girl
you had one job
>>71359518
naked soldiers? do I want to know?
>>71359575
pic
>>71359989
wut? you like war better than deporting shitskins? why?
they have their own countries already, why do they get two?
>>71360465
it was part of they're plan
>>71363371
HURRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>71365077
>Malvinas
wut?
>>71366247
tl'dr
>>71366798
>Helihoax
kek
>>71358745
>But most of our cheap labor comes from Mexico and we've never done a coup there
Sicario wasn't a fictitious story
>>71358142
Idk man, Valpo/viña is pretty comfy
>>71357036
Bolibro ?
>>71357533
Did he start the fire?
>>71358747
Hey, remember the Peru-Bolivia confederation ?
>>71357173
You guys got Alan and Ollanta back to back. At least Fujimori will bring back the good old times again. Hell, maybe she'll make Peru safe enough that i'll be able to come back.
>>71367534
>>71363749
Are you guys wealthy whitish lads who live in the comfy parts of La Paz/Sucre?
>>71366853
Anybody? Everything I can find is crying about commies
>>71367925
Out of the Ashes: Life, Death and Transfiguration of Democracy in Chile, 1833-1988
>>71367826
Live in Santa Cruz de la Sierra /comfy/ as fuck.
Except some summer days. 32C +
Got a pretty good family name, half american, pretty white.
Life is good.
>>71359478
Wow, never thought about it this way...
Just wow.
>>71367826
> La Paz
> comfy
Time to choose
Dry, high altitude, semi-cold, full of midget niggers
You fucking aymara ?
>>71359478
We don't get any of them. Only France and Germany (which backed Argentina) get them.
>>71366247
>Only a tiny fraction of the population is involved in the intelligence agency and a smaller subset of that is invested in American. The only success they could possibly have is through local intermediaries.
All of the US supports and subsidizes the activity of the CIA, the US government and the CIA frequently act in support of corporate interests abroad and with corporate support and assistance, the corporate element represents a much larger portion of the US populace than the CIA alone. But yes as you say here:
>Any commercialization effort depends on LOCALS. At best the CIA has an auxiliary rule.
Ill assume you mean colonization here? You're correct, it depends on local involvement, and it gets local involvement. But just because you take locals and arm them and fund them and agitate for them (both via propaganda and frequently with physical violence) doesnt mean that group would be legitimate otherwise. And just because local agents are acting for you doesnt mean you arent in control.
>They had over a century to rectify their problems. You don't see poland sitting on its ass after german and russian imperialism destroyed their country twice. You're just contriving excuses to justify your opionions.
After Spain left, Great Britain filled the vacuum, we took over when they lost influence. They never had a breather here.
>Allende didn't receive a mandate, he only assumed power because a fraction of the centrist party allied with him. Furthermore, there allegiance switched almost immediately.
So what? He was the legitimately elected president, thats not an excuse for a coup.
continued...
>>71368522
Huh? France gave you the exocet missile codes and Germany dindu nuffin
The only country that truly backed us was Peru, they donated some mirage fighters
>>71366247
....continued from >>71368732
>Furthermore, his land reform policies and constant inflationary measures hardly made him popular. Beyond the declining demand for copper exports, his policies fueled the economic decline of chile.
Land reform policies that removed foreign control of Chile's land, just like in Cuba and Bolivia and everywhere else they are enacted. Colonies have to reclaim their land sometime or they will always be shadow states crippled by foreign control of their land. Something tells me if China bought up 70% of the land in the US and controlled it for their own gain for decades your opinion on land reform would change dramatically, particularly if China gained control of that land during a period of US weakness and foreign control/intervention. This is mirrored in dozens of ex-colonies throughout the world, whether they were officially occupied colonies or controlled by proxy governments, whether it was land or oil or whatever.
Once the country throws off colonial power and actually manages to get a government that wants to govern for the benefit of the people who actually live in that nation, you have to reclaim the nation's resources, and there is always a backlash from the colonizing power AND from locals who are invested in the status quo. It doesnt make foreign control magically legitimate that this inevitably happens.
>Pinochet was a boy scout compared to just about every communist leader ever, and his ascension to power had very little to do with the US.
Pinochet was a crazy asshole and he was worse than numerous communist leaders including Castro and a variety of soviet leadership post-stalin. His ascension had quite a bit to do with the US since they agitated against Allende constantly for the previous decade, making conditions for a coup very likely, and supported him after his coup.
Final continuation...
>>71369007
There's no such thing as the "exocet code", and Perú didn't donate anything.
They sold us 10 or so Mirage-5P in 1981, what they did was speed up the delivery, but the planes weren't combat ready until the war was alredy over.
Other countries that did help where Brazil (interned a Vulcan bomber among other things) and Libia, to name a few.
>>71368134
>>71368343
I Don't know Bolivia well, I just heard from some wealthy Chileans that Bolivia is really divided. Rich parts are super white, rest of country is filled with Aymara hobbits (Chile is similar I guess). Is life getting worse under Morales?
>>71366247
...final
You just want to play a game where you can pretend Allende won with huge popular support, was widely successful, and was then put down by the big mean USA so you can equate the US to the USSR.
Absolutely never said or implied any of this shit.
Nice strawman though.
All I said was he won the election despite heavy US support and agitation against him. I never said he had a mandate or that he was widely successful. He may have been the worst president ever seen, but we'll never know because a military coup took him down, given US record in the area and in Chile specifically I know for a fact that they worked against him with propaganda and funding, and I'd be very surprised if the CIA wasnt involved directly with the coup, though there is currently no direct evidence that the US government would admit to (which doesnt mean anything, they dont admit to anything until its the next century and nobody cares).
As for the USSR vs. the US, there is no comparison, the US is FAR worse.
>>71368732
>
All of the US supports and subsidizes the activity of the CIA, the US government and the CIA frequently act in support of corporate interests abroad and with corporate support and assistance, the corporate element represents a much larger portion of the US populace than the CIA alone. But yes as you say here:
Right, but at the end of the day, it's maybe a few hundred people. They're not pizarro, it takes more to effectively subjugate people.
>But just because you take locals and arm them and fund them and agitate for them (both via propaganda and frequently with physical violence) doesnt mean that group would be legitimate otherwise. And just because local agents are acting for you doesnt mean you arent in control.
Why would you assume there's no legitimate resistance? Do you honestly believe no local difference would resist a left wing agenda?
>So what? He was the legitimately elected president, thats not an excuse for a coup.
Would you prefer a civil war?
>and reform policies that removed foreign control of Chile's land, just like in Cuba and Bolivia and everywhere else they are enacted. Colonies have to reclaim their land sometime or they will always be shadow states crippled by foreign control of their land. Something tells me if China bought up 70% of the land in the US and controlled it for their own gain for decades your opinion on land reform would change dramatically, particularly if China gained control of that land during a period of US weakness and foreign control/intervention. This is mirrored in dozens of ex-colonies throughout the world, whether they were officially occupied colonies or controlled by proxy governments, whether it was land or oil or whatever.
No
>Pinochet was a crazy asshole and he was worse than numerous communist leaders including Castro and a variety of soviet leadership post-stalin.
People vote with their feet. Where is the million strong chilean diaspora?
>>71369453
Israel gave us fuel tanks for the planes
I don't know why, the British gave them Palestine....
Politics I guess
>>71369534
Yes, but then there's the MESTIZOS who are a fucking abomination. Basically camba and colla.
Fucking dreadful to even think about it.
Evo Morales, basically all he did was gift away natural gas and modify the education, for the worst.
>>71369708
>Absolutely never said or implied any of this shit.
>Land reform policies that removed foreign control of Chile's land....Colonies have to reclaim their land sometime or they will always be shadow states crippled by foreign control of their land.
>They never had a breather here.
>As for the USSR vs. the US, there is no comparison, the US is FAR worse.
>>71369848
Apparently the Israeli PM hated the British with passion. It was personal for him.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/begin-aided-argentina-during-falklands-war-to-avenge-the-british-1.357246?v=2BE2452E9194258BB7FAA059DB1CDF19
>According to Lotersztain's account, Begin disrupted the salesmen's description of Argentina's situation in face of British attacks, reportedly saying: "You've come to talk badly about the British. Is this going to be used to kill the English? Kadima [go ahead]."
We were also among the first to recognize Israel and sold them the enriched uranium they used to start their nuclear program during Illia's government, the alliance goes way back.
>>71369453
yeah we sold you outdated planes for more than they cost 15 years before, but well your airforce was completely BTFO by Britain,your pilots already know mirages and we needed you not be completely defendless against Chile. Just politics, bro
>>71369767
>Right, but at the end of the day, it's maybe a few hundred people.
Its amazing how deluded you are, like hundreds of talented and trained people cant have a profound effect on the course of events, when backed up by millions of dollars of expenditure and material.
>Why would you assume there's no legitimate resistance? Do you honestly believe no local difference would resist a left wing agenda?
I never assumed there was no legitimate resistance, but when you take massive US support and put it behind the opposition and they STILL cant stop a political movement from gaining control of the government without resorting to a military coup, then the opposition is not significant enough to legitimately stop Allende.
>Would you prefer a civil war?
I would prefer they wait until the next election like civilized fucking people. If Allende had a history of discarding election results and retaining power despite popular opinion, or ignoring instruments of government that removed him from office in a legitimate use of power, then you'd have a reason to use force to remove him, otherwise you can fuck off with your coup apologetics because you have zero moral or governmental grounds to say a damn thing.
>No
Great argument. You totally convinced me. Its totally not a thing that colonial powers seize resources and land and retain them even after they have nominally left the country. Its totally not a thing that when these colonial remnants are threatened the colonizing nation almost always creates a massive backlash through covert action or outright force. I mean the entire scope of history points to this being a thing, but you said "No" so my argument just falls apart, well done.
>People vote with their feet. Where is the million strong chilean diaspora?
Im not informed on this particular topic, so instead of saying "No" like a faggot Im going to say "I dont know about this particular aspect of the discussion"
>>71369534
But don't get me wrong.
Others before him weren't best either.
Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
That mutherfucker.
Now HE is one of the worst.
>>71370231
What are you trying to say here?
I never said or implied that Allende had a mandate or that he had sweeping popular support, he won the election despite US influence. Thats all I said, the shit you quoted doesnt even pertain to that point.
>>71369453
Menem, please go
>>71359478
KEK
If /pol/ doesnt consider him white, then no one can be white.
>>71370606
We bought them before the war (1981), but I get your point.
We needed the planes so we had to pay for them.
>>71370652
>I never assumed there was no legitimate resistance, but when you take massive US support and put it behind the opposition and they STILL cant stop a political movement from gaining control of the government without resorting to a military coup, then the opposition is not significant enough to legitimately stop Allende.
So far you've only named a propaganda campaign. So, yeah that seems to be the case here. Furthermore, where's the evidence for your other claims? The other two parties had consolidated against allende. What level of support do you think he had?
Why do you get to decide what's legitimate? Why makes you think there was broad mandate for allende? The miner strikes? The taxi driver strikes? So, if you thought you're country would collapse if subjected to a few more years of bad policy, what would you do?
>Great argument. You totally convinced me.
I don't feel like taking the time to explain why I don't think that's a fair analysis of the land ownership and the popular response to him. If you don't think I'm worth responding too, you're not forced to respond.
>Im not informed on this particular topic, so instead of saying "No" like a faggot Im going to say "I dont know about this particular aspect of the discussion"
It's a simple argument, if people don't want to live under a regime, they overthrow it or leave. Did pinochet make his own version of the berlin wall or take measures like NK does to keep its citizens in? No, he even left power due to a plebiscite. It didn't resemble the Romanian revolution.
>>71371887
Allende was taking campaign donations from the KGB. *That* was the coup.
>>71358434
>t-t-the us smuggled printing machines into chile and printed money like crazy, that's how they ended up with a 600% inflation rate
>allende dindu nuffin wrong, it was all kissinger's fault
That's why commies actually believe.
>>71372169
That's the dirty secret to their narrative.
>exterminate the kulacks
>illegally appropriate property
>kill the priests
>ruin the economy
>It's not imperialism if i call it international socialism
>>71371887
>So far you've only named a propaganda campaign. So, yeah that seems to be the case here. Furthermore, where's the evidence for your other claims? The other two parties had consolidated against allende. What level of support do you think he had?
About 37% of the vote, which was enough to win the election.
>Why do you get to decide what's legitimate? Why makes you think there was broad mandate for allende? The miner strikes? The taxi driver strikes? So, if you thought you're country would collapse if subjected to a few more years of bad policy, what would you do?
Chile decided what was legitimate when they elected him. I never fucking said he had a broad mandate. Why do you keep insisting I did? You can name all kinds of shit that happened under him, but Chile was in trouble regardless, you act like only in the 3 years he was in office was there anything wrong with Chile.
>It's a simple argument, if people don't want to live under a regime, they overthrow it or leave. Did pinochet make his own version of the berlin wall or take measures like NK does to keep its citizens in? No, he even left power due to a plebiscite. It didn't resemble the Romanian revolution.
Which is bullshit. Plenty of populaces have to live under regimes they dislike intensely, such almost the entire eastern block after WWII, the fact is people DO organize against US puppet/proxy regimes, and they DO struggle against them, failing to struggle against Pinochet or to escape the country doesnt mean they liked him, any more than it would if they failed to struggle against Allende and his apparently completely horrendous and unacceptable government (totally worse than pinochet who threw people out of helicopters for fun, I swear XD)
>>71372882
>About 37% of the vote, which was enough to win the election.
No, that's why he was elected in the congress.
>never fucking said he had a broad mandate. Why do you keep insisting I did?
Well, then who gives a shit about him being elected? You're obstinately clinging to that point, if as it seems to be, he was deeply unpopular, who cares about the election?
>Which is bullshit. Plenty of populaces have to live under regimes they dislike intensely, such almost the entire eastern block after WWII...
So we've gone from the USSR was better than the US in terms of puppet states, to ok, they're trapped by the berlin wall and can't leave, so they'll stay with a bloodthirsty regime.
>>71373422
>No, that's why he was elected in the congress.
He won more of the vote, but only a plurality, thats why congress had to confirm him. He won the election, period, thats how elections worked in Chile at the time. It was a legitimate election and he won. Im sorry you think violent insurrection is a proper response to a legitimate election, because I think its pretty obvious that its profoundly immoral and unacceptable.
>Well, then who gives a shit about him being elected? You're obstinately clinging to that point, if as it seems to be, he was deeply unpopular, who cares about the election?
He was either deeply unpopular or he had a mandate? Is this some kind of retarded left/right black and white thinking going on? There is a range of opinions but at the end of the day he fucking won a legitimate election. Thats how democracies work. Just because you dont like the result doesnt mean you get to immediately shoot people about it.
>>71373796
>...thats why congress had to confirm him.
No, he won about 1% of the popular vote more than the the christian democrat party, the congress had either candidate to select. I know it's pedantic, but that's actually the case.
>Just because you dont like the result doesnt mean you get to immediately shoot people about it.
How exactly do you think states are formed and continue to exist? Do you think allende was redistributing the land without force? Violence is kinda off the hidden message to all politics. Legitimacy isn't some intransigent law of nature.
>>71374741
>No, he won about 1% of the popular vote more than the the christian democrat party, the congress had either candidate to select. I know it's pedantic, but that's actually the case.
? The congress confirmed him as president, thats how their system worked. You keep saying congress had to get involved like that makes it less legitimate, but thats like bitching if a tie in the senate had to be decided by the V.P., its how it works.
>How exactly do you think states are formed and continue to exist? Do you think allende was redistributing the land without force? Violence is kinda off the hidden message to all politics. Legitimacy isn't some intransigent law of nature.
Do you think if someone's ranch was confiscated under imminent domain by the US government the rancher would be justified in assassinating the president?
Of course he was redistributing with force, the government is empowered to use force for the common good. The fact that common good is completely debatable is completely irrelevant.
>>71356131
Chilebro?
>>71356619
Malvinasfag?
>>71358684
For you
Serious question for Chileans, do people openly support/admire Pinochet now, or does nearly everyone agree that he was bad/went too far? I'm guessing his reputation is something like Franco in Spain?
>>71375517
>? The congress confirmed him as president, thats how their system worked. You keep saying congress had to get involved like that makes it less legitimate, but thats like bitching if a tie in the senate had to be decided by the V.P., its how it works.
Well, that's sorta the issue come 73 when they start claiming he was elected unconstitutionally.
It also sorta undermines any moral justification for supporting the presidency.
>Do you think if someone's ranch was confiscated under imminent domain by the US government the rancher would be justified in assassinating the president?
Yes...?
You are kidding, right?
Pinochet was so hated that the people missed Allende. Before you post, have some sense about you.
>>71375928
He did nothing wrong
>>71375928
He's an old meme, after he died people that supported him just don't talk about him anymore, and some of his reforms turn out to be very negative in the long run (retirement funds).
But nobody running for a political position will say openly that they like him.
>>71376490
>Well, that's sorta the issue come 73 when they start claiming he was elected unconstitutionally.
It also sorta undermines any moral justification for supporting the presidency.
They can claim all they want to, thats not what they were claiming when he was put into power during the election until after the fact when they began to regret their decision, except perhaps the losing side, but it isnt what the christian democrats claimed during the election when they sided with allende to put him into power, its only what they said in 73 after they decided they didnt like him. Im not impressed.
>Yes...?
In what instances is the government allowed to use force then? If a single citizen can interrupt plans to build vital infrastructure or, say, a single foreign corporation with a history of abuse can monopolize the usage of large % of the county's land even though their land was illegitimately acquired during a colonial period? Or maybe to incarcerate violent criminals? Or is there no usage of force by the government that you consider legitimate?
C H I L E I S W H I T E
H
I
L
E
I
S
W
H
I
T
E
>>71378229
I'm not disputing that he was elected. I don't know why you keep reiterating this point. He has the democratic support of roughly equal if not less than his rivals and a legal status, and everyone is supposed to bend over in your moral framework? Maybe you find this persuasive, I don't and allende still lost.
If you believe it's appropriate or expected for a revolutionary government to seize the property of its masters, what's the difference between that hypothetical person and them?
Scale? Perspective?
>>71357589
>>71357655
>>71357918
>>71358684
>>71358896
>>71366268
>>71375625
>>71379897
>and everyone is supposed to bend over in your moral framework?
No, they are supposed to oppose him with the instruments of government that they control, and in the next election depose him IF THEY CAN.
The reason that Im repeating that he was elected was not just because he was elected, but because he was legitimately elected. He was the president, period. Now if there was a way to recall him, or impeach him, or whatever, that would be fine, but in no instance except for if he disregarded legitimate decisions of the system (such as the recall/impeachment) or he committed some serious crime and he refuses to relinquish power should he be removed via a coup or revolt. The proper way to replace a president acting within his governmental scope is to ELECT SOMEONE ELSE NEXT ELECTION.
>If you believe it's appropriate or expected for a revolutionary government to seize the property of its masters, what's the difference between that hypothetical person and them?
I dont consider revolutionary governments legitimate by default, in fact the initial revolutionary government cannot be said to be legitimate regardless of what they are replacing or how they act. The first legitimate government is the government that comes into power during the next democratic elections, if that kind of thing even takes place, and of course it frequently doesn't. Revolutionary Governments should be restrained to running infrastructure and necessary programs and moving toward elections.
The problem I have in discussions like these is the tacit assumption that coups are OK. That deposing legitimately elected officials is fine. Its not.
It doesnt matter what you think of these officials or what the CIA thinks of them, or what the citizens think of them, if the official was legitimately elected he shouldnt be removed before his term is up and he is voted out except in the case of criminal or political crime that is handled by whatever government instruments are set up to handle them.
>>71356037
>your military will never be this aesthetic
>>71380907
well they inspired themselves from german traditions ect for their army so of course their uniforms are great
>>71358434
corporate colonialism and communism both belong in the shitter
