Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2123)	11/4/2002 11:19:12 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6901

Allende was a president elected without a majority, trying to circumvent the legislature in order to nationalize the economy. In such a circumstance, a coup was inevitable, too many interests would seek to protect themselves. It is my belief, although it is speculative, that we could not have prevented the coup had we wanted to, and therefore that the decision was made to establish good relations with the likely successor. The spread of socialism per se had nothing to do with it, or we would have sponsored the overthrow of various Labour governments in Britain, or a coup in Sweden, or one in India. What was relevant was the perception, true or false, that a regime was going to help to advance Soviet interests markedly. As it happens, subsequent data has shown that the Soviets did not consider "objective conditions" in Chile to be ripe for nationalization, and therefore did not support Allende's move. But, to my mind, that only supports the view of the inevitability of a coup.......