Your first paragraph is totally right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. Batista was an evil man, and many older Cuban-Americans today will admit that they originally supported the revolution because of that. But you're totally wrong to say that things were worse under Batista than under Castro. There's a great movie, The Lost City, that captures this whole tragedy: the evil of Batista's regime, the competing revolutionary movements, Castro's promises that he wasn't a communist, his victory and ensuing mass executions, lifelong exile in America for some--most of whom left Cuba with nothing but the clothes on their backs--and a life robbed of freedom and opportunity for the rest.

As far as dictatorships go, they're all terrible scourges on mankind. But if I had to choose to live under a dictator like Pinochet or Batista, vs a dictator like Stalin or Castro, I'd choose Pinochet and Batista every time. Communism is uniquely destructive of a nation's culture and productivity. For example, in communist Cuba, you don't choose a job because it pays more. You choose a job based on what opportunities to steal it gives you. Cheating and stealing is the main way to get ahead, or even to meet your needs, in such a society. Few things could be as destructive to a people.

Well, if you'd prefer Pinochet there's little left to say on my part. Pinochet was a monster, a torturer and a traitor to his country, and along with many murderous dictatorships in South America (like in my country, Argentina) enacted the infamous "Plan Condor" for the assassination of dissenters, as well as the illegal detention and forced disappearance of students and political opponents. It's really hard to come up with a more brutal and despicable dictatorship in South America than his.

We share no common ground on which to continue this discussion.

Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one country is extremely wealthy and stable, and had a peaceful transition to democracy. The other is still a totalitarian hell hole. You might come to a different conclusion, but moral indignation is unwarranted.

No, what you're saying is terrible.

Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictatorships to kidnap and murder dissidents abroad (so that if you were a Chilean dissident living in Argentina, "Plan Condor" ensured you'd be captured and/or murdered there).

There is no possible comparison between Allende and Pinochet.

Being "close allies with Castro" isn't a crime, and to think so reeks of ideological persecution -- the very thing you accuse Cuba of! In democracy, if you don't like a president you wait for your turn to vote a different one. If the president does something grossly illegal, there are legal procedures to remove him from power, like impeachment.

Removal by military force, assassinations and political repression IS NOT AN OPTION IN DEMOCRACY. No matter how allegedly ruinous a government is removal by military force IS NOT AN OPTION. That's not how democracy works! There is no possible crime a democratically elected president can commit that justifies a military coup, the banning of all political parties and clandestine torture centers. Nothing.

At this point you might tell me that you don't think democracy is above all possible problems, that some emergencies may justify suspending the rule of law... but in that case, your criticisms of Cuba and Fidel ring very hollow. You'd be on very shaky ground.

You disgust me. We have nothing in common. I'm stopping this discussion now.

You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes.

Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism.

It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.

This conversation is absurd.

Hitler was nothing at all like Allende; the führer was elected but his rule wasn't a democracy and nobody in his right mind would call him democratic. And I'm pretty sure free elections weren't a possibility under Nazism.

Pinochet -- a man who had nothing but disregard for the "freedom" you claim to admire -- was a monster that kidnapped, tortured, murdered and committed crimes against humanity, and then in his later years shielded himself under diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution. Yet you prefer him -- a mass murderer, unlike Allende -- because "man has never prospered under Communism". I'm sure the people Pinochet ordered tortured and killed were happy that this was done in the name of prosperity.

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.

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 still "prefer him".

>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.