What's Veeky Forums opinion on Augusto Pinochet?

aren't you going to post that cringey picture of captain america punching hitler?

you don't like frogs?

es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_económica_de_Chile_de_1982

>not being an idiot
But you are an idiot.

Why do you hate frogs?

You're not a frogophobe, are you?

>depose democratically-elected leader who opposed foreign interference in latin america after turning a blind eye to american economic sabotage of your country
>have (((Chicago economists))) tell you how to run the country
>worshipped by "nationalists" because of the depraved manner in which you murdered political opponents (not just communists!)

That first line is the most leftist ideologically charged bullshit I ever read on here, literally dindu nuffin: the argument.

>no candidate can secure the outright majority
>congress nominates Allende because he secured the highest percentage
>have him sign a pledge promising to uphold the constitution
>Allende swears in and keeps violently ignoring the constitution and the congress
>congress has enough and delegates the commander in chief (Pinochet) to step in and stop this madness
This is what actually happened.

The first one to release the means of production to the free market, gets to stay on my helicopter.

t. Pinochet

Congress could have either impeached him or just waited to defeat him in the election next year. Instead they allow a brutal dictator to take over, murder and torture thousands of dissidents, with democracy only restored in 1990.

It all comes down to what segments of the population they represent. Speaking as someone from that background, the middle and upper classes of Latin America are some of the most depraved, anti-democratic people in existence. They'd rather the streets run red with blood than allow a democratically-elected socialist government.

the Enlightenment was lost on Spain and her Colonies.

just wait to see how the USA goes to shit when the spics become majority.

>They'd rather the streets run red with blood than allow a democratically-elected socialist government.
Based.

>democratically elected
There's this horseshit again. He just won the plurality with 36% of the vote (his opponent had 35%), not the majority. It was the Congress that put him in power, his presidency was conditional as per Statute of Constitutional Guarantees which he outright violated as ruled by the Supreme Court.

Which justifies a 17-year long military dictatorship which murders and tortures political dissidents and sweeping economic reforms which effectively serve as upwards redistribution of wealth...how?

I didn't address that. I addressed the fact Allende wasn't a legitimate president since he consciously broke the conditional terms of his presidency, therefore his removal was perfectly justified.
Also, your emotional appeals should warrant a ban.

>you need to be a leftist to dislike sociopaths

GDP wise Chile is the richest country in SA
Meanwhile Venezuela is a shithole
Worth it

>opposed foreign interference in latin america

Except Soviet influence, of course.

Check out the Mitrokhin Archive, Allende was literally a KGB agent.

Gringo means american, not soviet, soviet good, american bad.

Considering what happened when the upper and middle classes didn't manage to depose a democratically elected socialist government, they did nothing wrong.

Pinochet was a great leader who did nothing wrong, considering how Chile was threatened by communist guerrillas armed by Cuba, he was actually very restrained in dealing with them, he killed only 3,000 people, when the greatest thread, the Revolutionary Left Movement, had 10,000 members.

But he is nothing the reason Chile is so great nowadays, that is Diego Portales, the greatest Latin America statesman of all time.

The position of literally everyone who isn't a Stalin apologist is, at the very least, "did some bad things but was better than communism." Which he was. God forbid Chile becoming a Cuban foothold at South America as it would if Allende remained free to act.

Tell me about him, why was he so great?

It is funny because communist shits love to bash liberal democracy as a bourgeois farse, but when the military deposes one of them they go full muh democratically elected.

"Removal", not "removal, then 17 year long military dictatorship".

>venezuela is the only socialist government in latin american history, who the hell is evo morales
>hellish, violent free market latin american countries like colombia and honduras don't count because i say so
>top line GDP in chile is all that matters even if almost all that wealth is in the hands of the top 10%
>i fantasize about mass murder and torture but throw a fit when anarchists punch a guy outside a milo rally

This desu, and the "better than communism" part doesn't justify any of the bad shit he does.

did*

Completely irrelevant to my post.
On the other hand, both examples are cherrypicked. Argentina suffered the worst crisis in its history with similar policies, while self called "socialist" governments like those in ecuador and bolivia are doing just fine (which is infinitely better than venezuela, and certainly better than how they were doing before). But it's irrelevant, defending orthodox economic policies is fine and does not equate defending sociopathic dictators, and by doing that associating you only hurt your cause. Then again, you are probably an edgy /pol/tard and actually like that he's a sociopath.

I said specifically I was talking about the first line of your post. Your reading comprehension is horrible.

I think it's only Poles.

youtube.com/watch?v=RAJ_n_CMAjU

youtube.com/watch?v=sNbaQpezqnk

>"Removal", not "removal, then 17 year long military dictatorship".

A soft parliamentary government wouldn't have been able to eradicate the guerrilla. Pinochet did.

"While Pinochet wasn't a proponent of direct democracy, the fact he killed all communists is extremely admirable" - Petr Cibulka (a Czech)

>evo morales
>equivalent to Venezuela

You do not know shit about South American politics, jesus christ.

Evo Morales is criticized for not being socialist enough.

globalresearch.ca/bolivia-the-morales-government-neoliberalism-in-disguise/30148

eju.tv/2013/10/felipe-quispe-la-lucha-de-octubre-negro-no-tuvo-resultados-el-actual-gobierno-es-neoliberal/

>Bitching about frogposting
>on Veeky Forums
You do know that many people use Pepe, not just /pol/.

Morales's socialism is far more rhetorical than practical. While he did pursue some left-wing policies, he is far, far, more moderate than Chavez or Maduro.

Yeah, it ticked me off it wasn't an absolute shithole, just a relative one, now this explains it.

CIA shill

All "leftist" governments in latin america face leftier opposition, including venezuela.

Source? Not exactly doubting you that he said it but I just can't find it anywhere.

Most Latin American leftist leaders only adopted socialist rhetoric, while governing according to neoliberal policies, Lula, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, even Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, they all did that.

The only ones who took the socialist rhetoric seriously and governed according to them were Hugo Chávez and Nicolas Maduro. We all have seen the results.

Ok, that one was legitimately funny. At least if you post frogs, post ones that are relevant, not just rehashed /pol/ meemees

Both Evo and Correa are the same kind of typical latin american populist "socialism" as chavism, they just aren't retarded enough to keep long term macroeconomic inconsistencies going.

I bet you complain about people saying "not real socialism".
If we judge them by the definition of socialism, none of them are socialists. If we judge them by their self appraisal, they all are. None of those are neoliberals, that's for sure. If we look at the typical neoliberal policies (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus#Original_sense:_Williamson.27s_Ten_Points), they only comply with points 1 and 5 (not even in the case of correa since they use us dollars).

Fine with me.
>Stars are beautiful
>My warm blood stains the pure snow
>I REEE one last time

>Pinochet thread
>post Pinochet frogs
>huuu /pol/
>post inoffensive totally unrelated pepe
>now this is relevant and funny

I'm privileged to be old enough to remember the early 2000s as an young adult, so I can judge them according to their perception at the time.

I remember Hugo Chávez receiving a standing ovation at the World Social Forum in 2004, I remember people like Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali praising his policies, I remember Brazilian socialists criticizing Lula for being "neoliberal" and not radical enough like the Bolivarians in Venezuela.

I'm not Bolivian, but I've seen Bolivian socialists criticizing Evo Morales for not being radical enough like the Bolivarians in Venezuela, I'm not Ecuadorian, but I've seen Eduadorian socialists criticizing Rafael Correa for not being radical enough like the Bolivarians in Venezuela. They may not have been "neoliberals", and actual neoliberals hated them, but they were also criticized by the left, who spent the entire period from 1999 to 2014 holding up to Venezuela as a model.

Something happened in 2014 though that made them shut up about Venezuela. I wonder what happened.

Got to admit, now that I think about that doesn't make sense. You (or at least another) post Pinochet Pepe and that is considered offensive, but I post the Battle of Hastings Pepe, and that's funny. If I had an Veeky Forums themed confused Pepe, I would post it right now.

>I remember Hugo Chávez receiving a standing ovation at the World Social Forum in 2004, I remember people like Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali praising his policies
>Something happened in 2014 though that made them shut up about Venezuela. I wonder what happened.
Sure, I also remember chomsky criticizing chavez far before they turned to shit (like theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy).

>remember Brazilian socialists criticizing Lula for being "neoliberal" and not radical enough like the Bolivarians in Venezuela
>I'm not Bolivian, but I've seen Bolivian socialists criticizing Evo Morales
Again, this happens in all latin amercian countries, including venezuela (right now by bandera roja socialismo democratico, la causa radical, and i'm sure others).

Neoliberal who fixed Chile's economy by throwing the protectionists out of helicopters yet is for some reason worshipped by protectionists.

Overall pretty based.

>Congress could have either impeached him or just waited to defeat him in the election next year.

Those are constitutional methods. Constitutional tactics don't really work when the guy in charge openly flouts the constitution.

>worshipped by "nationalists" because of the depraved manner in which you murdered political opponents (not just communists!)
killed more people that had no polítical alignation that wanted democracy than commies though.

wasnt pinochet a cia plant?

Yes

pic
>muh economy

This

le epiccc XDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

...

>He just won the plurality with 36% of the vote (his opponent had 35%), not the majority
THIS FUCKING MEME AGAIN I SWEAR.
Frei Montalva LITERALLY got to be president with 31% of the votes two elections before.

only south americans can talk about this shithole. BR here, AMA.

ironic seeing as how 90% of newfags gravitate towards /v/, /pol/ and /b/

maybe that's the point of the chart but /pol/'s become an ironic joke of itself now so it's hard to tell

The reason for why chile isn't another absolute shithole like most other south american countries

>newfag calling others newfags
sweetie this board is 1 year old, what makes you think you have the authority to call somebody a newfag

>no candidate can secure the outright majority
Yeah, that's how multi-party states work. A lot of countries have prime ministers or executives due to there being several large political parties.

>Allende swears in and keeps violently ignoring the constitution and the congress
Funny that the Pinochet apologist feels entitled to use the work "violently."

It's just a fucking question, dude, calm down.
Also, crying about polfags isn't going to make them go away.

Please just kys right now.

>r/the_donald transplants on /pol/
>calling anyone newfags

Daily reminder that Pinochet never violated humans right because commies aren't humans.

>x aren't human
Exactly what Stalin said.

Shitty dictator who fucked up his country

Only insecure right wing clowns admire him

A literal CIA puppet. How special!

/v/ and /r9k/ are fine

/pol/ is utter cancer though

amusing how /pol/acks think attaching "nu-" to everything is at the cutting edge of insults

Hey hahah it's epic dubs frog :D

>sweetie

maybe you can fuck off back to 9gag you spammer.

/pol/ looks like /s4s/ realized they could vote dude, shitty dubs threads with vuage political themes spammed endlessly, except /s4s/ has the decency to come up with a thread that isn't just "le epic meme from a year ago"

At least s4s knows it's retarded.

I sure as hell wouldn't want him as my leader, but if you put a gun to my head and made me choose between him or a socialist I'd choose the crazy old Pinochet any day

>ignore that congress had no say in the coup and the christian dems only supported it because they thought they'd get power.
>Ignore 10th september's agreement of allende to step down if a plesbicite said so.
>ignore the first thing the junta did was close congress
>ignore military pretensions to dictatorship since carlos ibañez.

Your post was the most idiotic and /pol/ revisionism charged thing i've read today.

Gdp rise which happened after the military government disbanded.

>B-but my free market reforms

Free market reforms caused a spiral into unemployment worse than allende. The economy shrank to 1/3 of what it was in 1970. A three times worse collapse than Allende's government.

Repeat that until you believe it yourself /pol/.

>thinking allende was a soviet puppet despite he repeatedly allowing dissent to occur.
>in a country where every president had been linked to at least one massacre "matanza" of dissenters.
>believing most of the people like "pinochet better than communism" when allende was at best a demsoc.
>thinking chile would be venezuela tier if allende had remained in power when the junta caused the worst recession in chile's history.

/pol/ revisionism at its finest.

What guerrilla? The one that grew ten times when pinochet was in power? The one he actually did not stop and remained in existance until the end of the dictatorship? The same one that could not even get send help from the fucking soviet union without fucking up; getting drunk and telling everything accidentally?

Same guerrilla who was btfo by the democratic government after the end of the dictatorship with a single operation after a hostage situation?

>fixed
Tfw biggest recession after allende happened under junta's government.
>protectionist
Allende was ISI economics; proindustrializtion and nationalist.

>Raw gdp
So much gdp wow; its not as if anything had happened globally around that time..

Since we are showing graphics; explain this one
>inb4 goyim conspiracy

What? If anything the latter proves the former to be true. What is the point of voting in a socialist when he will be usurped by capitalist backers?

Pinochet is the only reason we havent risen above this shit hole; and why we have so shit politics today. He fucked up the entire country; "gifted" state property to his wife bitch and utterly killed the industry.

I don't get it, you're showing a graphic that shows the economy was worse under the military dictatorship
Aren't you trying to prove the opposite?

>Socialist democrat who will go away a few years later; if he doesnt get killed by a terrorist. Minor recession; mostly due to the US cockblocking access to credit.
>Cancerous dictator who will stay for 17 years; fuck up the economy and the industry; sell resources to foreign powers and engage in massive; widespread corruption. Massive recession and economical restructuring with more than half the country (and probably you) below the poverty line; high unemployment and crime.

...are you retarded user?

No dude; i'm telling the quoted guy his graphic is shit.

...

You misunderstood the post, the whole point was to show that Pinochet didn't help the economy and you could see that by how unstable the GDP was