What do you guys think about this coup d'etat?

What do you guys think about this coup d'etat?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yy9VvAuCCEg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_Chilenos_de_Nuestra_Historia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)#Human_rights_violations
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Chile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War#Human_Rights_Commission_of_El_Salvador
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>overthrow a commie like regime: good
>turn your country in a neoliberal/CIA puppet: bad

faggot deserved it

>latin american leftists are patriots who want to build up their countries
>latin american rightists sell their country off to Jews/Americans

Ironic isn't it?

>Have the left under Frei literally destroy crop production and increases in real wages leading to shortages in food
>Allende sees this and thinks "we need more of this"
>Get overthrown
Good.

As a chilean I despise both Allende and Pinochet and that stain in our history destroyed educated political discourse forever.

Also, these fuckers completely destroyed our national identity. You ask a chilean to define ourselves and nobody knows how to answer, we are disjointed society with not one political party to represent the interests of the majority.

We got fucked culturally, politically and psychologically for at least half a century.

>mfw

based helicopter man, SHADILAY my brother! xD

From what I've gathered, the sentiment seems to be
>Glad Pinochet saved the country from Allende
>Mad that he stayed in power and started handing out free helicopter rides

Does that sound right?

Also post helicopter men

don't forget

>i'm going to appoint a literal chofer as my minister
>y-you're free to stay here as long as you want Castro pls don't hurt me
>lmao just print more money like just make the country richer
>private industry? i don't THINK SO
>private banks? i don't THINK SO
>fuck having finances and logistics and shit, i'm fixing all the prices so everyone can have things
>wtf i love China now
>wtf why are we out of milk
>wtf why aren't people working
>wtf why are we having 600% inflation
>FUGGIN CIA IMPERIALISTS :DDDD

>Shadilay
It's KKK not shadilay you leddit cancer

>and that stain in our history destroyed educated political discourse forever.

oh hello there

t. r/the_donald refugee trying to appear wise

Makes me angry, angry about Americans

youtube.com/watch?v=yy9VvAuCCEg

Scum.

>unironically supporting Allende
The only thing Chilenos hate more than Pinochet is Allende.

No, it's me trying to take back /pol/ from r*ddit refugees who made this kekistan thing , then started complaining on other boards about their own leddit memes as though it was /pol/

Wrong. Maybe in your elitist bubble.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_Chilenos_de_Nuestra_Historia

Overly simplified, but in a way, accurate.

Care to give a more accurate description?

Chilean military looks pretty bad ass to be quite honest.

it's the only thing they really need to do to be honest

Bolivia and Peru might stirr shit but they're not going to start a war of aggression, ever, not because the international community might express [deep concern] but because Chile has the best outfitted, best equipped and least-corrupt of the militaries in South America.

and god, believe me, the Chilean military is still pretty corrupt. It's just that we only have to try a little to wipe the floor with our neighbors.

>Wrong
Right. Daily Reminder that marxism is more bourgeois than capitalism

>"asexual"

that's just "defective hormonal glands" and "violently autistic" marrying into a prissy, self-aborbed person.

Allende was a marxist puppet of Castro, Castro was already cutting ties with the USSR, so our only help would be from a dictator that will soon start to rival the biggest super power in history all by himself.

The US ain't taking this shit, Kissinger plans a coup for Chile, Pinochet being the opportunist he was (he wasn't even going to participate in the coup until various generals of the military forces decided to do so) took power and promised he would step down after order was restored, he didn't (obviously).
He sold the formerly State owned companies to his buddies for pennies, and made a country club out of our country. He also fucked every single type of personal freedom outside of economic one and property.

He drove us to the verge of a war with Argentina (though he did handle it well, siding with Britain on the Falklands war, since Argentina would have fucked us up good).

And he completely fucked us in terms of political discourse and psychologically, nowadays commies are nationalists and right wingers are globalists, it's just a political mess.

This is not a fight, user. I just pointed you to a poll that proves you wrong. I don't care for your internet wars.

Or alternatively "nobody wants to fuck me so I'm sour graping". The amount of fat women claiming to be asexual is staggering.

This is true. Allende was literally upper class.

You posted a TV show poll as if it wasn't bourgeois source, therefore you cede your position and prove to the whole thread how retarded you are

Seeing Chilean students looking increasingly uncomfortable while some other students who were in the student union kept singing the praises of Allende has been one of the funniest thing I've seen in class. Ended up with the students practically begging for testimonies of oppression by the fascist dictatorship from the little group of Chilean students, one Chilean girl standing with a few students applauding, saying quickly with a kinda thick accent that while the dictatorship was difficult, Allende isn't really that particularly well remembered/liked and that in her case her family had had more problems under Allende (iirc they were expropriated, can't remember), and then sitting back down in an awkward silence.

>be rich
>get expropiated
Comrade Allende now and forever.

It was necessary and it was better than the alternatives.

I should add that I brought this up to point out that the US did mess with him but by no means this means that his shitty system would have worked otherwise, since communism always collapses, it's a vile ideology and Pinochet was a beacon of good.

have a bullet for free commie

>Allende
>a communist
He was a socdem on steroids. Plus if his system were to fail eventually why would America bother to intervene and eventually back a coup?

I don't do ERPing, thank you very much.

You can't be a social democrat and then do so many unconstitutional things that congress passes a resolution demanding that you be stopped.

That defeats the "democratic" part.

I need to know the liberal population and the leftist population of America because we need a lot of helicopters to get rid of the vermin. How many helicopters do we have?

>I posted a TV show because TV is a mass media.
Which is bourgeois
>Pinochet is hated
Only among the bourgeoisie
>Allende is loved
Only among the bourgeoise.

>Blaming Pinochet for the failures of Allende and Frei
Typical leftists

>TV is bourgeisie
You're clearly not familiar with chilean culture.

I don't think you really know what social democracy means but even if that is true, it is not the legislature but the judicial to deem his actions as unconsitituional. Also not in the legislature's place to tell the executive what to stop doing stuff, hinder him sure but not demand he stop.

>The media isn't the bourgeoisie
Just because prols take there orders and opinions from the porkies doesn't mean they are bourgeois

Well, typically Social Democrats are supposed to obey constitutions and laws.

It's a central part of the ideology in fact.

>There are people who think that Allende was socdem
Kek

Killing commies is a moral duty

>right wing blaming left for their own mistakes
IMAGINE MY SHOCK

No dumbass social democracy is an economic ideology not a political one. Tyrants can be socdem too like Gaddafi

Latin America hasn't learnt the important lessons regarding it
>average user is so poor yet so entitled that keeps thinking that the man is keeping him/her down
>the most zealots of all of them come to the limelight telling everyone that they will put the man in his place and then EVERYONE WILL GET HIS/HER FAIR SHARE (this belief is the very core of all of Latin America's problems)
>those fanatics ride the wave over the people into the power and after a few years, their proverbial incompetence shows (POWER IS NOT FOR EVERYONE, YOU ENTITLED FUCK! yet Latin America does not learn)
>suddenly and out of fucking nowhere, the few decent citizens remaining do something and even more, as a miracle, they succeed
>Latin America keeps thinking that Allende was a good boy, that they deserve their fair share (as if something like that wasn't an impossible concept) and that there's a divine power who must provide it, be the heavens or be the church

>democracy is an economic ideology not a political one
>tyrants can be democrats

>tyrants can be democrats
adolf hitler?

Your post is so wrong that I'm not even going to bother after this:
>>average user is so poor yet so entitled that keeps thinking that the man is keeping him/her down
>USA literally keeps Allende's government down

How many did Pinochet kill?

Well, Hitler only won a plurality, he was appointed to the chancellorship.

More broadly, the word "tyrant" implies that a person's position of political authority is unlawful or unjust; Social Democrats explicitly seek an electoral mandate.

>USA literally keeps Allende's government down
Change "Allende" with "chavistas" and you'll see how the world sees you

~3000.

For some context, the Uruguayans killed around 100, the Paraguayans killed about 1,200, and the Argentinians killed between twenty and thirty thousand.

I thought I read somewhere that RJ Rummel claimed that as many as 10,000 could have been killed, with it being as high as 30,000 possibly.

>Ignoring Cuba
IMAGINE MY SHOCK
>Deepening financial crisis
Do I really need to tell you how badly Frei and Allende affected the Copper Mining industries with their "fair" wage system? The GDP began declining under Frei and Allende, what Pinochet inherited was a shit show he couldn't recover the economy from , but by the end of his reign Chile became the most successful economy in the whole of South America

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)#Human_rights_violations

TL;DR the best estimate I see is 3000 on the money.

>taking a label way too literally instead of looking at the policies he implemented
Seek help with your autism

Is it still possible that as many as 15,000-30,000 may have still died under Pinochet? I'm not trying to defend Rummel or pick a side here but is possible that the regime did kill a lot more than 3,000? We're not counting how many were disappeared by the DINA secret police, the army, etc.

>The voice of the people is never tyrannical
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

No, that 3,000 includes the people disappeared by the secret police. If it's any consolation, Pinochet did have 30,000 people tortured.

THIIIIIS

>In 2011, the Chilean government officially recognized 36,948 survivors of torture and political imprisonment, as well as 3,095 people killed or disappeared at the hands of the military government

Typically, the most reliable estimate of the body count, in any historical event, is the minimum, and the maximum is largely indeterminate.

> Pinochet inherited was a shit show he couldn't recover the economy from , but by the end of his reign Chile became the most successful economy in the whole of South America
According to Chilean economist Alejandro Foxley, by the end of Pinochet's reign around 44% of Chilean families were living below the poverty line

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Chile

Fuck, I was meant to post this to you, I don't know why I posted this to me.

So RJ Rummel is probably wrong in that assessment? You still don't think its possible that the death toll is higher than 3,000 people?

I don't doubt that there were people who were killed in the military infighting during the coup, or whose family wasn't around to report their disappearance to the new post-junta government, or otherwise weren't recorded by the government.

The thing is, you can't count how many things you don't know, you can't even estimate.

So the best we can really do is say that a minimum of three thousand people are known to have been killed during the Pinochet regime, and the maximum number is unknown.

Gaddafi wasn't a social DEMOCRAT. You dumbass.

Refer to

>No dumbass social democracy is an economic ideology not a political one. Tyrants can be socdem too like Gaddafi
This is what latinamerican neolefties believe. Pure cognitive disonance

Well lucky for you, the Supreme Court of Chile declared Allende's actions unconstitutional or illegal plenty of times as well.

>so·cial de·moc·ra·cy
>a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means
There was nothing democratic about Gaddafi.

Do you have a number for the poverty by the end of Allende's government? because Chile was generally hideously poor for the better part of the century and it's history, not to mention politically unstable and violent.

the supreme court and the congress both in fact

Well thanks for that. Still 3,000 is nothing compared to how many were killed by other rightist governments in Latin America such as the El Salvadorian military junta or the Guatemalan military dictatorship that butchered untold tens of thousands.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War#Human_Rights_Commission_of_El_Salvador
> A 1984 Amnesty International report stated that many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces, who openly dumped their mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.

His economic policies was, that is the whole point to be made here. desu there needs to be a new label for 'social democracy from the barrel of a gun' variant

Whenever I think about Operation Condor, I tend to then think of the government of Pol Pot, which was in power during the same time period.

First I think "well, it could have been worse"

Then I think "the late seventies really sucked"

>by democratic means
>democratic means
>democratic

>it was social democracy except it was neither social nor democratic
Okay bud.

But both parties were declaring different things to be unconstitutional. Maybe start with what the judicial's accusations in your arguments and ignore the legislature next time

>More autism on the label and avoiding any discussion on policies

>call something a monkey
>it's not in fact a primate but a tree
>HURR WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT LABELS
Fuck off retard

The policies cannot be social democratic if they aren't democratic, idiot.

I don't know if Operation Condor included Central America but reading how fucked up the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan military governments were and how these death squads killed their enemies in some of the most brutal fashion such as tearing off the flesh of children by dragging them across a field of barb wire is just hard to imagine.

the sheer brutality of certain accounts reminds me of both Chinese numbers and Christian propaganda about the Roman empire.

at some point you gotta stop and tell yourself, "how many weeks of preparation would it take to kill someone THIS horribly" and then you realize it's only dumb conscripts doing it and they'd never have the patience and inventiveness of hollywood serial killers and these were mostly exagerations and they probably just beat them to death.

>raping nuns and killing union leaders is the only way to avoid literally pol pot
>good thing we stopped pol pot from coming to power by leveling cambodia with bombs

I know this is Noam Chomsky saying this but what I have read about what happened in Guatemala and in El Salvador tells me that it probably isn't rebel propaganda. It's possible they exaggerated how they killed them but I wouldn't be surprised with the death squads and all.

>confusing the method to enact policies with the contents of the policies itself