>Hitler was nothing at all like Allende; the fuhrer was elected but his rule wasn't a democracy and nobody in his right mind would call him democratic.
Allende's regime was not democratic. He was ruling by diktat and ignoring court rulings and acts of congress. That's textbook dictatorship.
>I strongly recommend you abandon the "let's say Pinochet wasn't so bad" strategy because it's beyond wrong and ridiculous. Just pick any other strategy, but not this one. Also, don't compare flawed but democratic governments to Hitler.
What's ridiculous is that you're either unwilling or unable to engage with the concept of a choice between evils. You keep dishonestly portraying my argument as a defense of Pinochet. It is no such thing. Indeed, I would have liked to see Pinochet executed for his crimes, including not handing power back to the democratic institutions after ejecting the dictator. He was still the better of these two evils.
>It's cool that you've shown your true colors and don't consider democracy to be "the be all and end all". Unfortunately, this undermines your criticism of Cuba and pretty much everything you say. You lose the right to criticize Cuba because it's a dictatorship or because it suppresses dissidents or because it doesn't respect the rule of law, because Pinochet did all of this and way worse, but you "prefer him".
Do you really think that democracy is the be all and end all? So you would have no problem with genocide as long as a majority approved of it? I'd love to see you try to defend this absurd stance.
No, Allende's wasn't a dictatorship. There was an institutional crisis and the preparation of a coup in progress (and it's no conspiracy theory by now, given all the documentation available, that the CIA was involved in preparing the groundwork for the coup), and Allende was in open conflict with Congress. That's pretty serious and everyone would agree Chile was in serious crisis, but it's not "textbook dictatorship".
You know what is a textbook dictatorship, one that 100% of the world agrees was a dictatorship, though? Pinochet's. And you claim to prefer him.
It's hilarious because every single crime you claim Allende committed, Pinochet actually committed and worse. No-one elected Pinochet, but people -- regardless how "flimsy" was the majority -- elected Allende. Allende didn't suspend constitutional rights, Pinochet did. You could outvote Allende in open elections, but you couldn't do that to Pinochet, because he didn't hold elections. You claim Allende overruled Congress, but guess who DISSOLVED Congress? Pinochet. Torture under Pinochet's rule was stomach-churning: rape, bone-crushing and mutilation of genitals were par for the course... you really, really need to review who you claim to prefer.
In the "choice of two evils" (your words), you choose the worst, plain and simple.
Had Allende been allowed to have his way, Chile would probably be like Cuba today, poor, miserable, and enslaved, rather than the richest and most stable country in the region. Chile under Allende also would have been another foothold for the Soviets in the Western hemisphere.
Castro didn't come out as a totalitarian communist on the morning after the revolution. He first methodically solidified his power and only showed his true colors when he knew his position was safe. There's every reason to believe that Allende was following the same playbook.
Allende's regime was not democratic. He was ruling by diktat and ignoring court rulings and acts of congress. That's textbook dictatorship.
>I strongly recommend you abandon the "let's say Pinochet wasn't so bad" strategy because it's beyond wrong and ridiculous. Just pick any other strategy, but not this one. Also, don't compare flawed but democratic governments to Hitler.
What's ridiculous is that you're either unwilling or unable to engage with the concept of a choice between evils. You keep dishonestly portraying my argument as a defense of Pinochet. It is no such thing. Indeed, I would have liked to see Pinochet executed for his crimes, including not handing power back to the democratic institutions after ejecting the dictator. He was still the better of these two evils.
>It's cool that you've shown your true colors and don't consider democracy to be "the be all and end all". Unfortunately, this undermines your criticism of Cuba and pretty much everything you say. You lose the right to criticize Cuba because it's a dictatorship or because it suppresses dissidents or because it doesn't respect the rule of law, because Pinochet did all of this and way worse, but you "prefer him".
Do you really think that democracy is the be all and end all? So you would have no problem with genocide as long as a majority approved of it? I'd love to see you try to defend this absurd stance.