SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (87704)3/29/2003 2:41:14 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Actually, he began to rule by decree, without going through the Congress. More importantly, whether Allende remained the leader of the coalition or not, the country was on the verge of civil war, and the more radical parties in his coalition were pushing for a leftist coup. There was a destabilization campaign, but what he was doing would have been economically disruptive without it, so it is hard to gauge how effective it was. I believe that there was some attempt to mount the first coup because it has been verified. I cannot say with the second because it was never established that the initiative came from Washington. Pretty simple. Anyway, I am not using anything as an excuse, I am pointing out that the country was in the throws of an economic and political crisis that was at least in part of Allende's making, and that it is not surprising that someone should have mounted a coup. I agree that the United States took sides, and that it had some responsibility, whatever the extent, for the coup. The only thing I am interested in is the misrepresentation of what we did, as if the Chileans would have been fine if left to themselves. I do not, if you want to know, approve of the degree of hostility that the Nixon Administration had towards the regime from the start, and I am sorry that the first, failed coup attempt muddies the waters........