As noted in are parallel debate on this subject (on the "other" board):
...Mxy, all I've tried to do is point out that Allende could have been as bad or worse than Pinochet.
You don't seem to want to consider that point.
I've conceded that you've made a good case that it was wrong, from means standpoint, in any event. You, however, don't want to even consider whether the end wasn't ultimately a beneficial one in the long one.
Of course, you then have the right to argue that end did not justify the means. And you could be right. But the fact that people can attempt to examine that, rather than simply assume one way or another, should not be taken as some sort of character flaw.
Most historical events have good effects and bad effects. Its the nature of the beast. It is intellectual dishonesty and laziness, however, to pretend otherwise for sake of some sort of psychic comfort.
...communist governments killed more people than any other form, including Nazism. Take a look sometime at how many Jews Stalin killed, for instance. That historical fact, that every communist government on earth-elected or not-eventually became a dictatorship, does bear at least some consideration in examining what the possible outcome of an Allende government would have been.
However, where I think maybe I should have been more senstive with you is that, as we discuss this, it seems more and more likely that you spend enough time under Pinochet that, to you, its not as much a historical event, as something you actually lived with. And for that, upon reflection, I realize that this discussion is probably as painful for you as a discussion of a recent tragedy or disaster in the US might be for me.
I was thinking of this as a situation as historical and removed as WWII or the Civil War. You were thinking of it as a situation as recent as 9/11.
And, if that's the case, I do apologize for failing to consider that.
But I appreciate your willingness to engage on the topic.
