OK, explain to me the case for Pinochet...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Freedom House is left wing why does Cuba have a 7,7?

[J. J.]

No, Chile was not better off under Pinochet.

Oh, and it's pretty funny that someone who loves Pinochet claims to be a moderate.

BRTD, I'm afraid you do not understand subtlety between "loving" Pinochet and saying that he was not as terrible a dictator as some of his contemporaries.  Further, you ignore the illegalities of the Allende regime prior to the coup.  Now Allende was not a dictator, but he was heading down that road.  Had he not been, it's unlikely that the coup would have been successful.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Then why did Chile have an almost perfect Freedom House score? Allende probably would've lost the next election in a year, and then he would've been gone. Instead they got Pinochet for 17 years. Clearly Pinochet was wrong then. I consider anyone who defends any right wing dictator to be a right wing extremist, and anyone who defends any left wing dictator to be a left wing extremist. Period.

[Jake]

Okay, left-wing extremist.

[J. J.]

Then why did Chile have an almost perfect Freedom House score? Allende probably would've lost the next election in a year, and then he would've been gone. Instead they got Pinochet for 17 years. Clearly Pinochet was wrong then. I consider anyone who defends any right wing dictator to be a right wing extremist, and anyone who defends any left wing dictator to be a left wing extremist. Period.

You've just defined yourself as a left wing extremist.

It appears that a majority wanted Pinochet for much of those 17 years.  He regarded as so "bad" that 42% say, "Hey stay on another decade," even though I probably would have voted no.

Again the defense isn't that Pinochet good, or Allenda is evil.  It is that Pinochet wasn't as bad as dictators before, contemporary, or since.

So tell me, do you think Pinochet was worse than Pol Pot, the neighboring Junta in Argentina at the time, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I never said I wasn't a left wing extremist.

You're a complete fool if you think Pinochet ever had majority support and that referendum in the 80s wasn't totally rigged.

Worse than Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein? No. Hardly an accomplishment though. The Argentine junta? Pretty much equal. The two were very ideologically similar, the only reason they didn't get along was silly old nationalistic conflicts. But in the end both did pretty much the exact same things. Worse than Castro? Yes. Worse than the much demonized Nicaraguan Sandinistas who weren't even a dictatorship? Absolutely, by all measures.

[J. J.]

I never said I wasn't a left wing extremist.

You're a complete fool if you think Pinochet ever had majority support and that referendum in the 80s wasn't totally rigged.

Getting 42% effectively in favor keeping him on after 16 years is a feat.  FDR got 53% of the popular vote, in the middle of WW II at 12 years.  While there was no doubt vote rigging 80's referendum, but it's very possible that he had majority support then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would disagree with you on two counts.  First, the "Dirty War" escalated under that Junta.  Suppression, after the bloody days of 1973 decreased in Chile (though it did not end).  Second, in at least two cases, Argentina tried foreign expansion; Chile, under Pinochet, did not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please tell me the last time Castro willingly submitted himself to free elections and voluntarily gave up power when he lost?

Let's look at this way.  Was Pinochet the worst dictator of all time?  No.  The worse dictator of his contemporaries?  No.  The worst dictator in the western hemisphere?  No.  In the Western hemisphere south of the Equator?  No.  Did his regime get progressively less repressive?  Yes.  Did he accomplish some good for the region (by serving as a check on Argentina and on Communism)?  Yes.  Did he accomplish some good for Chile?  Yes, to the extent that Socialist governments there follow his economic policies, at least.  Did he hold himself above the law and stay in office after losing?  No, though his pullout was in stages.

On the whole, I'd say he was a minus for Chile, but there were pluses to Pinochet regime, that are absent in other dictatorships. 

[YoMartin]

I am noting that the situation under Allende was heading the direction of extra-constitutional power

Present continuous is a difficult tense. "Was heading" implies the idea of a clear and predictable direction. I´m not so sure about that, as I´m not sure of the benefits of "preventive action".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can´t know that actually. That´s the problem with dictators: they might be popular, but we can´t know that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually most of the killings of the Argentine Junta were commited in 1976-77. The 1980-83 period was much more "peaceful" in that regard. And Pinochet also tried foreing expansion; it´s now known that he planned to cross the Andes after Argentina was defeated in the Falkland´s, but was warned no to do it by his northern allies.

About the Castro-Pinochet comparison, I would say: Pinochet´s regime was authoritarian, while Castro´s is totalitarian. Certain organizations outside the government did exist in Chile, while they don´t in Cuba. Of course, when you´re tortured or killed by either regime that´s not much of a difference...

[J. J.]

I am noting that the situation under Allende was heading the direction of extra-constitutional power

Present continuous is a difficult tense. "Was heading" implies the idea of a clear and predictable direction. I´m not so sure about that, as I´m not sure of the benefits of "preventive action".

Well, first of all, I'm not stating that Allende was at the point where he was a "presidential dictator."  Nor am I saying that the coup with 17 year junta was the best solution.

I am saying that there were extra-constitutional actions that raised concerns of Allende's former parliamentary allies, who called for military action (though they did not call for 17 year junta).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can´t know that actually. That´s the problem with dictators: they might be popular, but we can´t know that.
[/quote]

It surprisingly seems likely.  No popular uprising and a share of the vote that you referred to as "impressive" eight years later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually most of the killings of the Argentine Junta were commited in 1976-77. The 1980-83 period was much more "peaceful" in that regard. And Pinochet also tried foreing expansion; it´s now known that he planned to cross the Andes after Argentina was defeated in the Falkland´s, but was warned no to do it by his northern allies.

[/quote]

According to Wiki the "dirty war" was continuous during the Junta (and arguably had begun under the Eva Peron regime).  In Chile, the major killing ended soon after the coup.  Pinochet was not engaged in anything like the "dirty war" in 1980, for example.  If you were a left winger, you had  a better chance of safety in Chile than Argentina.

My point is, Pinochet didn't try foreign expansion.  Argentina did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not claiming Pinochet is a great guy who should be on a stamp (or in a sig), but I am saying that he did make some improvements, did not invade his neighbors, left voluntarily (though slowly) and moderated (though far from completely) his suppression.  He could have done A LOT more damage.

[YoMartin]

Well, we won´t agree on the other issues, but about Pinochet vs the Argentine Junta: Argentina had some 4 times the Chilean population, while it had 3 times its number of missing (desaparecidos). The CONADEP has listed 9.000 missing in Argentina (the 30.000 number has no base); in Chile there were 3.000. Actually, the odds of being tortured and killed by the government were higher in Chile than in Argentina. There are no official numbers of exiled (that I´m aware of), but I think it´s also higher in proportion in Chile (most of the current Concertación leaders left the country in the 70´s, including Presidents Bachelet and Lagos).

[J. J.]

Well, we won´t agree on the other issues, but about Pinochet vs the Argentine Junta: Argentina had some 4 times the Chilean population, while it had 3 times its number of missing (desaparecidos). The CONADEP has listed 9.000 missing in Argentina (the 30.000 number has no base); in Chile there were 3.000. Actually, the odds of being tortured and killed by the government were higher in Chile than in Argentina. There are no official numbers of exiled (that I´m aware of), but I think it´s also higher in proportion in Chile (most of the current Concertación leaders left the country in the 70´s, including Presidents Bachelet and Lagos).

Pinochet also ruled for a longer than the Junta in Argentina (17 vs. 6 years).  Most, though not all, of the killing and torture occurred in the aftermath of the 1973 coup.  I can think of three dictators that moderated their regime somewhat after being in power long, Pinochet, Franco, and Napoleon III.  As can be seen today, in Zimbabwe, or in Iraq previously, that usually isn't the case.

I'm not making the case that Pinochet was good, only that he was less bad.  I was asked to make the case for Pinochet, and I think that is it.