What the loss of Brazil to "the Reds" would mean for the United States

ESR ^ | September 9, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[wardaddy]

Actually Allende did not suspend elections. In March 1973, the Chilean congressional elections netted his opponents 55% and his own party union 43% which was up slightly from the 36% he had recieved in the presidential election 2 years prior. The opposition lacked the 60% required to impeach Allende as they wished and his party viewed their marginal increase as encouragement to increase land and business confiscations etc. Oddly, the military stopped a coup shortly after the March elections but this little hum of a civil war whereby the government was not functioning (aside from land grabbing and business confiscating.....and imprisoning or assasinating some of the opposition)kept steamrolling and had brought the country to a virtual standstill of polarization. When Allende called for a spontaneous national referendum in Septmeber hoping to prove at least a plurality of support for his regime as a PR ploy essentially, the Army (which had already purged it's own lefties) took action and the rest is history.

I confess, I do not agree with your anti-"American Imperialist" bent but you are correct in saying technically that Allende never suspended elections....to the best of my knowledge.

I feel we have the right to exercise our power wherever we see fit and the local parameters of how the government we have a problem with came into existence doesn't matter to me one. Under your interpretations, we would have never acted against Hitler (elected) until the last moment when he declared war on us. Which is exactly what we did...and history proves that was a mistake in my view.

As for Allende, he brought it all on himself. Tough. I know Chlieans today who's families are still just as polarized between left and right now as then 30 years ago. I do however think that no matter how tuff the Caudillo was that Chile is the better for it.

I did not source this since I think you won't ask for it since I think that however distant your own perspective is from mine that you will recognize my synopsis to be accurate.....aside perhaps from my personal analysis.
Regards

[Red Jones]

thanks for all that information; I had read an article where at least I thought the author had said that allende had done away with elections. Maybe my rememberance of exactly what that article said so many years ago was faulty, more likely the article exagerated on this point. But I remember descriptions of the tactics allende was using, how he was blackmailing and bullying opponents and taking land and such. And I remember that there were riots in streets just before allende was overthrown because food was not coming into santiago. The economy was becoming dysfunctional and it was reaching crisis.

I trust your version better because you seem to have some real knowledge. So allende did not actually do away with democratic process and a large portion of the people still supported him even after he did these things.

They had a civil war down there is what seems to have happened. My view is that the outside world shouldn't just jump in on one side or another in that civil war and according to what you said it was a two-way civil war where allende was having his opponents killed before he was taken out. Pinochet you say was a criminal in that his government killed opponents, that's true. But Pinochet also rescued the country from disaster. Today Chile is known as most prosperous nation in latin america. The civil war is long gone. The people are free to vote.

You know that during Sherman's march through the parts of the south the american army killed civilians for fun, they raped systematically, they stole lots of property, they plundered and Lincoln was a war criminal. Maybe some international tribunal should've had lincoln's head on a platter after that war?

[wardaddy]

You're welcome.


Allende simply tried to force his Socialist ways on a populace from which he had no true mandate. If the opposition holds 55% of Parliament and one is trying to install a Socialist government and SERIOUSLY redistribute wealth and the private ownership of property and businesses, then that fool had best have the military on his side since he was clearly going against the wishes of the majority.

I'm quite happy our intelligence services and even some of our companies whose assets had been confiscated, contributed to his demise. Had he gained a strong foundation, it would no doubt have spread throughout our southern neighbors. Now with Chavez and Lula making lots of noise, expect more problems in Argentina probably first. Peru is vulnerable too but their military has already shown they are willing to "eliminate" lefties given the opportunity. Colombia is a special case....very complex.

Regards!

[Tailgunner Joe]

US scents political shift in Latin America

Marxist-Inspired Cuban-Venezuelan-Brazilian Axis Could Create Massive Problems For U.S.

[quebecois]

A couple of points:

1. Brazil, like the rest of Latin America, is unsuited for western-style government and economy. They have a mixed-bag third world population that simply has no cultural history of democracy and free enterprise. Their politics usually alternates between a small clique of educated white rulers who loot the country, and a third world uprising that results in a government of leftist demagogues.

2. The more that the leftists destroy the economies and nations of Latin America, the more that our way of life in heartland America is imperiled. When Venezuela and Brazil implode, amid fluries of "hate-whitie/hate USA" propaganda, they will all head for the US/Mexican border. This will destroy our way of life in the short run, and turn our country into another Brazil in the long run.

3. The world seems to be going to hell in a handbasket lately. Latin America is spiralling into socioeconomic chaos, the middle east is in the grips of islamic fanatacism, sub-saharan africa is (as usual) a stinking pesthole. Very little is going right these days. These are unsettling times.