NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, I didn't know that you guys are so sensitive to mere suggestions!

Since the US keeps telling every other country wich leader to chose, and sometimes even forces them to, hey it was only logical that you would expect us to do the same, no?

Suck it up.

Since the US keeps telling every other country wich leader to chose, and sometimes even forces them to, hey it was only logical that you would expect us to do the same, no?

Suck it up.
Where's that guy that says "Two wrongs don't make a right" that pops up when it's good for him?

Especially when the first wrong was done by....

you guessed it

The idiots of the country!



Yes, we all got em. You and you and you and you!

Please, we all know that the world prefered John Kerry. We all know how important this election is to the world. We all know how much you care.

But in the future, don't tell us how to vote.

I will make this as short as possible, how would the Brits like it if we mass emailed them telling them to vote for Blair? Because, hey, a vote for Blair helps the current administration we're stuck with. Doesn't the world want America to cooperate with the world like this?

I hope that the answer is no.

Anyway, my two cents. Which are becoming less and less worthy everyday.
In fairness buddy a lot of non americans kept their mouths shut. I didnt start taking the piss until the election was safely over;)

Greens slam Bush's Latham attack
By Libby Sutherland


US President George W. Bush should pull his head in and stop interfering in Australian domestic policy, Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.

In an unprecedented attack coinciding with Prime Minister John Howard's visit to Washington, Mr Bush told reporters overnight the early withdrawal of troops would hurt those who wanted freedom in Iraq....

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9743190%255E1702,00.html

And then the Australians returned the favor...

Australian opposition slams PM over pro-Bush comment

Mon Nov 1, 2:36 AM ET World - AFP



SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia's opposition has called on Prime Minister John Howard to publicly retract comments he made hoping President George W. Bush (news - web sites) would win the US election....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041101/wl_afp/us_vote_australia_041101073627

Before I'm called a Bush supporter, I supported Kerry till the very end. Then I supported the money paying for the flight to Canada.

Just as I suspected, the family voted against me.

So the Guardian did some publicity stunt and it's "the world telling the US how to vote"? I didnt know that a UK newspaper now speaks for the world. Obviously mankind overwhelmingly would have liked to see Kerry instead of Bush as president of the US now. It didnt happen, we will hopefully live to see him fail for another 4 years, providing much entertainment and stuff to debate about. Or we'll all get it over with and nuke the planet and end our miserable existence. Whatever it will be, I can live with it in the knowledge that both things are finite: Life and Bush's 2nd term as president of the Divided States of America.

Where's that guy that says "Two wrongs don't make a right" that pops up when it's good for him?

Especially when the first wrong was done by....

you guessed it

The idiots of the country!



Yes, we all got em. You and you and you and you!

Point is, commenting on other nation's politics is not wrong, I have a right to do so just like you people have the right to talk about my country's politics, freedom of speech is not exclusive of the americans. Again... get over it.

So the Guardian did some publicity stunt and it's "the world telling the US how to vote"? I didnt know that a UK newspaper now speaks for the world. Obviously mankind overwhelmingly would have liked to see Kerry instead of Bush as president of the US now. It didnt happen, we will hopefully live to see him fail for another 4 years, providing much entertainment and stuff to debate about. Or we'll all get it over with and nuke the planet and end our miserable existence. Whatever it will be, I can live with it in the knowledge that both things are finite: Life and Bush's 2nd term as president of the Divided States of America.
I did not mention one bit of The Guardian. Nor do I know what the story behind it is. But thanks for more support, Gig.

what have American's got against the rest of the world voicing an opinion?

did The Guardian's little stunt actually sway anyone? did it hell! so what's the big deal?

what have American's got against the rest of the world voicing an opinion?

did The Guardian's little stunt actually sway anyone? did it hell! so what's the big deal?
I know quite a few people in Ohio, and to a person, the Guardians little stunt swayed them, Democrat or Republican, AWAY from Kerry.

i stand corrected :)

Some random examples of foreign interference in domestic political affairs:

Iran (1953)

Eisenhower administration approves a joint British-American operation (Operation Ajax) to overthrow Iran’s government and install Shah Pahlevi in order to protect Western oil companies.

Republic of Congo (1961)

Patrice Lumumba, one of Africa's most vociferous leaders of anti-colonial liberation movements, became prime minister of the Congo in 1960. He was overthrown and killed by American CIA supported rebels one years later.

Guatamala (1951)

In 1951 Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, a reformer, whose policies infuriated the banana companies and U.S. politicians. In 1954, a group of Guatemala exiles, armed and trained by the CIA, and commanded by Colonel Carlos Castillos Armas invaded Guatemala and forced out the legitimately elected president.

Nicaragua (1980s)

In the 1980s Nicaragua had a socialist government, ruled by the Sandinistas. The Reagan administration "covertly" armed the anti-Sandinista Contras and, in an effort to destroy the Nicaragua economy, the CIA mined Nicaragua's harbors. In June 1986 the World Court sided with a Nicaragua law suit and found the U.S. guilty of violating international law.

Chile (1973s)

Salvador Allende, democratically elected socialist president of Chile, was overthrown and murdered in a CIA (Henry Kissinger) backed coup. The Allende presidency was replace by the dictatorship of General Pinochet, which gained the support of the U.S.

So how does the call of a British newspaper for people in Ohio to vote against George W. Bush stack up against this small fragment of U.S. interference in the politics of other nations?

let's just keep each other's noses out of each other's democratic or republican elections (and no, not the parties, the separate systems)

The Guardian could have picked a more republican place to try to sway votes other than Clark County, Ohio... But the White House wasn't open for comments.


All they managed to do is get everyone in Ohio pissed off at 'them damn limeys' and probably prompted a few old fogeys to vote Republican.

Like the systems in Iraq and Afghanistan which the US so conveniently made democratic and free?

lol! well said Gigatron

Some random examples of foreign interference in domestic political affairs:

Iran (1953)

Eisenhower administration approves a joint British-American operation (Operation Ajax) to overthrow Iran’s government and install Shah Pahlevi in order to protect Western oil companies.

Republic of Congo (1961)

Patrice Lumumba, one of Africa's most vociferous leaders of anti-colonial liberation movements, became prime minister of the Congo in 1960. He was overthrown and killed by American CIA supported rebels one years later.

Guatamala (1951)

In 1951 Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, a reformer, whose policies infuriated the banana companies and U.S. politicians. In 1954, a group of Guatemala exiles, armed and trained by the CIA, and commanded by Colonel Carlos Castillos Armas invaded Guatemala and forced out the legitimately elected president.

Nicaragua (1980s)

In the 1980s Nicaragua had a socialist government, ruled by the Sandinistas. The Reagan administration "covertly" armed the anti-Sandinista Contras and, in an effort to destroy the Nicaragua economy, the CIA mined Nicaragua's harbors. In June 1986 the World Court sided with a Nicaragua law suit and found the U.S. guilty of violating international law.

Chile (1973s)

Salvador Allende, democratically elected socialist president of Chile, was overthrown and murdered in a CIA (Henry Kissinger) backed coup. The Allende presidency was replace by the dictatorship of General Pinochet, which gained the support of the U.S.

So how does the call of a British newspaper for people in Ohio to vote against George W. Bush stack up against this small fragment of U.S. interference in the politics of other nations?
It is no wonder that most of America is sick of the left. The America hating ideas is NEVER going to win an election in America. When the Democrats were in office in their heyday,Kennedy, etc, they were PRO-America,ANTI-left(interfered in Cuba,remember, as well as most of the ones you mention above)They did not day after day go into anti-American litanies as they do now. If you go into history, you will find ALOT more that our nation, Dem or Republican either one, has done GOOD rather than bad. And you will also see that every other nation, when it was in its best interest to do so, interfered, in most cases(Europe throughout recorded history really, Arabs throughout theirs as well) much more than the US in our heyday. Even the countries you listed above...Nicaragua cheated to win an election, murdered thousands of opponents who dared to vote or run against them...Allende murdered army generals who disagreed with him,which was the reason the army rose up in the first place,and Lumumba was another who killed his opposition rather than face them in elections when it was convenient.

Ya we're trying. I'll agree with everyone that bush's reasons for going into iraq weren't justified, but that doesn't mean going in was a bad thing. Most americans, espiecialy in the military believe that we can do something great in Iraq. We believe that we can give them freedom. I've been talking to soldiers returning, and I've gotten to hear all the great things that they are doing, such as rebuilding schools, helping children, gives me hope that we can succeed. I don't understand why a country wouldn't want to be envolved in something that important.

They did not day after day go into anti-American litanies as they do now. A mild reminder that pointing out matters wrong with the country does not constitue hatred for said country - rather a desire to change it for the better. ;)

rebuilding schools they blew up with their 'precision' missiles?

Like the systems in Iraq and Afghanistan which the US so conveniently made democratic and free?
Afghanistan actually just completed their first free elections in many years, and Iraq's are only a couple of months away.The European nations who chose to back a massmurderer for the simple reason of gaining hundreds of millions of dollars through the food for oil scandal are already trying to make peace with Washington, I am only curious how they will explain that to their citizens who they made such anti-American with all the propaganda...I think the US should demand PUBLIC apologies instead of the quiet ones French and German and Russian leaders are trying to make.

A mild reminder that pointing out matters wrong with the country does not constitue hatred for said country - rather a desire to change it for the better. ;)
Point taken, as the fact that I was intending to point out matters wrong with his reasoning, and as such did not constitute hatred for him/her, rather a desire to make him/her better ;)

Ya we're trying. I'll agree with everyone that bush's reasons for going into iraq weren't justified, but that doesn't mean going in was a bad thing. Most americans, espiecialy in the military believe that we can do something great in Iraq. We believe that we can give them freedom. I've been talking to soldiers returning, and I've gotten to hear all the great things that they are doing, such as rebuilding schools, helping children, gives me hope that we can succeed. I don't understand why a country wouldn't want to be envolved in something that important.
We did alot more talking and working with the Iraqis than killing during my 1st tour there. The majority of the Iraqis are quite excited about being able to have free elections,although you get the feeling they still do not 100% believe it will happen, and for that reason, it really is important it does.If the terrorists there could quit killing Iraqis, it would be great actually.

Nicaragua cheated to win an election, murdered thousands of opponents who dared to vote or run against them...Allende murdered army generals who disagreed with him,which was the reason the army rose up in the first place,and Lumumba was another who killed his opposition rather than face them in elections when it was convenient.

You don't know any history, do you? Its alright to admit it.

If you did you would know that the Sandinistas came to power in a revolution, not an election (although they later did hold an election and peacefully stepped down when they lost). You would also know that the democratically elected Allende has never been accused, even by his enemies, of having ANYONE killed, although it was the generals, supported by the CIA who murdered the president of Chile. And Patrice Lumumba, head of the Congolese National Movement, became Prime Minister when his party won the election in 1960. The U.S. and Belgium (Congo's former colonial masters) immediately began to conspire to have Lumumba overthrown. He was killed a year later.

It's okay. Lots of Americans are just as ignorant as you are of their own history.

rebuilding schools they blew up with their 'precision' missiles?
No rebuilding schools after years of negelct as well just building schools that weren't their in the first place.

We did alot more talking and working with the Iraqis than killing during my 1st tour there. The majority of the Iraqis are quite excited about being able to have free elections,although you get the feeling they still do not 100% believe it will happen, and for that reason, it really is important it does.If the terrorists there could quit killing Iraqis, it would be great actually.

Its good to hear from someone who was there. Where were you stationed?

No rebuilding schools after years of negelct as well just building schools that weren't their in the first place.

ok, fair enough, but surely you admit that America has made a mess of things in Iraq? I mean look at recent events, calling in the British troops to support you in Fallujah I think it was. This 'war' shows no sign of ending in the near future, thanks George.

If the terrorists there could quit killing Iraqis, it would be great actually.

If another country invaded and occupied the United States and we Americans began resisting and blowing things up would we then be called terrorists?

Just curious.

You don't know any history, do you? Its alright to admit it.

If you did you would know that the Sandinistas came to power in a revolution, not an election (although they later did hold an election and peacefully stepped down when they lost). You would also know that the democratically elected Allende has never been accused, even by his enemies, of having ANYONE killed, although it was the generals, supported by the CIA who murdered the president of Chile. And Patrice Lumumba, head of the Congolese National Movement, became Prime Minister when his party won the election in 1960. The U.S. and Belgium (Congo's former colonial masters) immediately began to conspire to have Lumumba overthrown. He was killed a year later.

It's okay. Lots of Americans are just as ignorant as you are of their own history.
Actually I have a Masters in History, and don't really need an attempt at a lecture, thanks ;) Sandinistas killed thousands of their opponents, and cheated in the election they lost in, public knowledge,plenty of reports from that time frame, look it up.
Allende WAS said, by his military, to have been behind the mysterious deaths in "accidents" of 2 top military officers who disagreed with his policies(alright, I can see the officers may have been plotting a coup at that point already...then RELIEVE them, do not kill them)
And the election you refer to in 1960 was FULL of misdeeds in Congo, also plenty of reports from that time frame. While I agree the US should have stayed out(it was, again, our NATO "ally" who wanted an assist...go figure)
the person killed had done plenty of killing himself and on his orders. Live by the sword if you want, but you may die by it too, I am a soldier myself, and I understand that as well.

If another country invaded and occupied the United States and we Americans began resisting and blowing things up would we then be called terrorists?

Just curious.
If we resisted by kidnapping and executing civilians in order to cause terror, yes we would.
Also, the majority of opponents I saw in Iraq were not Iraqis resisisting invasion, they were foreigners from other mideast nations trying to kill Iraqis who were helping us, and trying to kill us as well, but usually having more luck killing Iraqi civilians.

ok, fair enough, but surely you admit that America has made a mess of things in Iraq? I mean look at recent events, calling in the British troops to support you in Fallujah I think it was. This 'war' shows no sign of ending in the near future, thanks George.

Ya your right. George screwed it up. He let the civilians plan the fighting. When he first was going to Colin Powell told him not to go. Bush was going anyway. So Powell took it to the genrals and said what do you need to win the war and secure the peace. They came up with at least 250,000 troops. Bush gave them 120,000 and rushed into the war. So yes i agree he screwed it up. When he said go he should have let the genrals do the planning and fighting.

Its good to hear from someone who was there. Where were you stationed?
Mostly around Kirkuk.

Actually I have a Masters in History, and don't really need an attempt at a lecture, thanks ;) Sandinistas killed thousands of their opponents, and cheated in the election they lost in, public knowledge,plenty of reports from that time frame, look it up.
Allende WAS said, by his military, to have been behind the mysterious deaths in "accidents" of 2 top military officers who disagreed with his policies(alright, I can see the officers may have been plotting a coup at that point already...then RELIEVE them, do not kill them)
And the election you refer to in 1960 was FULL of misdeeds in Congo, also plenty of reports from that time frame. While I agree the US should have stayed out(it was, again, our NATO "ally" who wanted an assist...go figure)
the person killed had done plenty of killing himself and on his orders. Live by the sword if you want, but you may die by it too, I am a soldier myself, and I understand that as well.

Dude, you got a Masters in History!?!? You need to get your money back. The two officers you refer to were killed ALONG WITH ALLENDE by the military during the coup. You said the Sandinistas "cheated to win an election." They never won an election. However, they did turn over power to their enemies when they lost. And Lumumba's election was at the end of Belgian colonization. You have complaints about the election? Talk to the Belgians.

And read a book, okay. I recommend a beginning survey of world history before you jump into "masters" level reading.

If another country invaded and occupied the United States and we Americans began resisting and blowing things up would we then be called terrorists?

Just curious.

The difference between terrorism and gueralla warfare is who you target. If you use unconventional tactics against military personel, such as the viet cong, it is guerilla warfare. If you main target is civiallian and other non combatants then it is terrorism.

ok, fair enough, but surely you admit that America has made a mess of things in Iraq? I mean look at recent events, calling in the British troops to support you in Fallujah I think it was. This 'war' shows no sign of ending in the near future, thanks George.
British troops were not called in to support the assault on Fallujah, they are taking the places of American troops who will conduct the assault.
And if America was half as casual about civilian casualties as everyone posting here usually thinks we were, the war would have ended long ago, instead we are very careful to avoid usually, and always at least minimize, them, and that takes longer, but the war does have a very definite end in sight.

Dude, you got a Masters in History!?!? You need to get your money back. The two officers you refer to were killed ALONG WITH ALLENDE by the military during the coup. You said the Sandinistas "cheated to win an election." They never won an election. However, they did turn over power to their enemies when they lost. And Lumumba's election was at the end of Belgian colonization. You have complaints about the election? Talk to the Belgians.

And read a book, okay. I recommend a beginning survey of world history before you jump into "masters" level reading.
WRONG again, the two officers I referred to died in an air accident 3 weeks before the coup.
Yes, I was looking at one thing and typing incorrectly on the Sandinistas, they cheated and still lost an election, doesnt make them suddenly good. But, I WILL give you that it was "good"to admit defeat still, I am sure the presence of thousands of international observers,(the same ones who had spent the week before the election reporting to world press on the atrocities I mentioned) helped to make that decision easier as well.

Dude, you got a Masters in History!?!? You need to get your money back. The two officers you refer to were killed ALONG WITH ALLENDE by the military during the coup. You said the Sandinistas "cheated to win an election." They never won an election. However, they did turn over power to their enemies when they lost. And Lumumba's election was at the end of Belgian colonization. You have complaints about the election? Talk to the Belgians.

And read a book, okay. I recommend a beginning survey of world history before you jump into "masters" level reading.
Oh, and as for talking to the Belgians, they talked to us, as I said, that is why we got involved. And yes, we should have learned by now not to bail out Europeans without thinking it through. I think now we have learned that.

British troops were not called in to support the assault on Fallujah, they are taking the places of American troops who will conduct the assault.
And if America was half as casual about civilian casualties as everyone posting here usually thinks we were, the war would have ended long ago, instead we are very careful to avoid usually, and always at least minimize, them, and that takes longer, but the war does have a very definite end in sight.

hmmm, what makes you so sure there's an end in sight?

WRONG again, the two officers I referred to died in an air accident 3 weeks before the coup.
Yes, I was looking at one thing and typing incorrectly on the Sandinistas, they cheated and still lost an election, doesnt make them suddenly good. But, I WILL give you that it was "good"to admit defeat still, I am sure the presence of thousands of international observers,(the same ones who had spent the week before the election reporting to world press on the atrocities I mentioned) helped to make that decision easier as well.

The coup in Chile took place because of Allende's socialist policies and close ties to Castro. There were no officers killed. You are pulling that out of thin air.

This thread was about fake outrage over The Guardian interfering in U.S. elections. My point is that the U.S. has a long history of doing more that writing letters to "influence" other nation's politics.

hmmm, what makes you so sure there's an end in sight?
Being there and seeing it. The Iraqis need to believe in the election, they are scared of the terrorists, they feel in many cases like no one is looking out for them, and they usually wind up stuck in the middle of battles between foreigners they wish would leave, and US forces they wish would kick the foreigners out without much damage. The upcoming assault on Fallujah,and probably one more, will thrash the foreigners and will probably be enough to convince the Iraqis to take their country into their hands and deal with these terrorists themselves. Many are almost to that point already, just need more training,and that is coming along well as well.

The coup in Chile took place because of Allende's socialist policies and close ties to Castro. There were no officers killed. You are pulling that out of thin air.

This thread was about fake outrage over The Guardian interfering in U.S. elections. My point is that the U.S. has a long history of doing more that writing letters to "influence" other nation's politics.
Just because you are unwilling to actually research something does not make it less true. However, you are correct, that was a swing from the main idea of this thread.
For the record, there are old newspapers from that time frame that discuss the goings on then. I have also spoken with military officers from many South American nations, and the gossip and lines of tradition is always there in this profession.
My only point I was making to you is that the US interventions are not as "evil" as most seem to imply. For the record, I do not believe the Guardians was "evil"either, but as I mentioned also, it actually swayed votes in the opposite direction. I vote repub, because of being military mostly, but my entire family is Democrat, always has been, and they, and many many other Dems I know in Ohio voted AGAINST Kerry BECAUSE of the stunt by the Guardian.

Takrai I have a question for you . How is troop moral over there? I mean i know a lot of units are spending too much time over, but how do the troops feel about it?

If another country invaded and occupied the United States and we Americans began resisting and blowing things up would we then be called terrorists?

Just curious.

I'm sure some compassionate Canadians would help you as well, but of course, they would be called terrorists also.

Takrai I have a question for you . How is troop moral over there? I mean i know a lot of units are spending too much time over, but how do the troops feel about it?
Most want to finish the job, they want to come home as well, but not in such a way we are called back in a year or three.The reserve units probably have slightly lower morale, as they were called from comfortable civilian occupations, and as such many never really expected to be spending this year in Iraq. That said, I mean as no disparage to reserve units,simply putting myself in their shoes, but to a man, everyone I spoke with while there, and here as I prepare for a possible second rotation, were glad Bush won because the perception (true or not) is that he will allow us to finish, and Kerry would have settled for a halfway attempt, then had us back in another few years. I would like to go back someday as a visitor actually, there are some really beautiful parts of that country,and most Iraqis are generous,kind,considerate people. I was amazed how the media here, in what I saw rightly or not as an attempt to flavor the election, portrayed Iraq in a much worse light than those of us who were there on the ground saw.

I'm sure some compassionate Canadians would help you as well, but of course, they would be called terrorists also.
Terrorists are those who attack civilians in an attempt to use terror as a weapon of choice. Insurgents and guerillas would fight military targets.
Terrorists are cowards who want others to die for their cause, guerillas actually deserve more respect because they themselves are willing to die for their cause,in attacks on military targets.
Edit: A better comparison with the way the scenario was stated would be the US in a dictatorship, England invading us to free us, then Canadians coming down here to kill those Americans who tried to help the English free us.

Just because you are unwilling to actually research something does not make it less true. However, you are correct, that was a swing from the main idea of this thread.
For the record, there are old newspapers from that time frame that discuss the goings on then. I have also spoken with military officers from many South American nations, and the gossip and lines of tradition is always there in this profession.

Wow, thanks for the tip. Your advice will come in handy in my profession (I'm a historian). I've wasted all these years reading dusty books and primary source documents when I should have been relying on "gossip." I'll try that next time. You must have picked up that research technique while working on your "masters in history."

It has been surreal discussing history with you. Alternate universes are fascinating.

Wow, thanks for the tip. Your advice will come in handy in my profession (I'm a historian). I've wasted all these years reading dusty books and primary source documents when I should have been relying on "gossip." I'll try that next time. You must have picked up that research technique while working on your "masters in history."

It has been surreal discussing history with you. Alternate universes are fascinating.
Perhaps you might try reading the dusty newspapers then ;)
Also, "gossip"takes on new meaning when it is relayed from firsthand accounts. Or, to be honest, I guess second hand, which still is a hand or too closer to the source than your books, I presume. I found quite a few books in my classes, that were wrong when matched up with real world events. I respect you, but you may want to open your eyes to other sources sometime, and when all else fails, as I said, the newspapers WERE there then.
Edit:If you really are openminded, I could probably hook you up with a recently retired mid grade officer in the army of said S. American nation whose uncle was one of the non-existent officers your version apparently forgets.He well remembers.

Like the systems in Iraq and Afghanistan which the US so conveniently made democratic and free?

I guess your talking about the first free election in afganistan in the last couple of thousand years. You know, the one where women were actually allowed out of the house and god forbid allowed to vote.

Ot how about the upcoming election in Iraq? You know, the one where you dont have to vote for Saddam on pain of death.

Ya your right. George screwed it up. He let the civilians plan the fighting. When he first was going to Colin Powell told him not to go. Bush was going anyway. So Powell took it to the genrals and said what do you need to win the war and secure the peace. They came up with at least 250,000 troops. Bush gave them 120,000 and rushed into the war. So yes i agree he screwed it up. When he said go he should have let the genrals do the planning and fighting.
Yes, he really should have. His father let the military plan the first war to free Kuwait. To be fair, our division was to have been part of the plan but Turkey wanted no part of it ;) which slowed down in some ways, but it all still will work out.

Perhaps you might try reading the dusty newspapers then ;)
Also, "gossip"takes on new meaning when it is relayed from firsthand accounts. Or, to be honest, I guess second hand, which still is a hand or too closer to the source than your books, I presume. I found quite a few books in my classes, that were wrong when matched up with real world events. I respect you, but you may want to open your eyes to other sources sometime, and when all else fails, as I said, the newspapers WERE there then.

Yes, yes, the newspapers. Which, of course you read in the original Spanish.

Perhaps when you have a chance to pull yourself away from the gossip and other sources you have developed in Chile you might want to read the Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which relied on, "newspaper accounts, the many eyewitness reports the Commission heard, and the reports of the armed forces themselves."

http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/chile/chile_1993_pt3_ch1_a2_a1.html

Funny, no mention of Allende being accused of murdering anyone. Lots of documentation of U.S. ally Gen. Pinochet's long reign of murder and terror, though.

Wow, thanks for the tip. Your advice will come in handy in my profession (I'm a historian). I've wasted all these years reading dusty books and primary source documents when I should have been relying on "gossip." I'll try that next time. You must have picked up that research technique while working on your "masters in history."

It has been surreal discussing history with you. Alternate universes are fascinating.

Well done your use of sarcassim. has worked really well. I've never had anything more then an intro to world history, so i'm an impartial observer. I got to be honest you know a lot, but your attitude and total unwillingness to admit you could be wrong takes away from that value. You know maybe if you weren't so intent on being right this would be a good 2 sided convo. Especailly on history that is contreversial and shrouded such as this. The only people that will truly know what happened are the people who were there the rest of us are left with educated guesses.

Yes, he really should have. His father let the military plan the first war to free Kuwait. To be fair, our division was to have been part of the plan but Turkey wanted no part of it ;) which slowed down in some ways, but it all still will work out.

ya you can't really blame the government of turkey though. That did put them in a really accward position.

Yes, he really should have. His father let the military plan the first war to free Kuwait. To be fair, our division was to have been part of the plan but Turkey wanted no part of it ;) which slowed down in some ways, but it all still will work out.

Although it was pretty sweet how we were able to set up an airbase in northern iraq regardless.

ya you can't really blame the government of turkey though. That did put them in a really accward position.
I do not blame Turkey. Their people overwhelmingly made their wish known, and a government is there to represent it's people.

I got to be honest you know a lot, but your attitude and total unwillingness to admit you could be wrong takes away from that value.

When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong (I make mistakes all the time). However, when I'm right I don't pretend to be wrong to make someone else feel better. Especially when the other person is inflating his knowledge of events by winging the facts and pretending expertise where none exists.

Was it Oscar Wilde that said: "The job of historians is to re-write history" ?

Yes, yes, the newspapers. Which, of course you read in the original Spanish.

Perhaps when you have a chance to pull yourself away from the gossip and other sources you have developed in Chile you might want to read the Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which relied on, "newspaper accounts, the many eyewitness reports the Commission heard, and the reports of the armed forces themselves."

http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/chile/chile_1993_pt3_ch1_a2_a1.html

Funny, no mention of Allende being accused of murdering anyone. Lots of documentation of U.S. ally Gen. Pinochet's long reign of murder and terror, though.
As I said above when I edited my statement, if you really ARE openminded and willing to hear, I could probably arrange for you to have some long historical conversations with a recently retired mid grade field officer in the Army of the nation we are discussing, whose uncle was one of the officers at the center of this discussion. He well remembers the events of that time frame. Also the newspapers I mentioned were US. The reason I had the conversation with this officer is because of the recent situation with regards to Pinochet. We have met professionally and developed for a time a friendship. And lastly, I am NOT condoning Pinochet. I am condemning the situation that allowed him to come to power, the first sparks of mutiny if you will in the military.After that the US saw, and took, an opportunity to move them away from Castro's sphere.There also are enough FOIA documents that do not mention the murders per se, but DO mention the "rare opportunity to move" and imply of the military(theirs,not ours) "suspicions"of Allende.
Lastly, my masters is in Military history, so this really is not my field, as I said however, there often are situations in the real world that already have proven many things I learned from the books, to be incorrect. Someone in your profession should be openminded to that above all else, as those who write history usually are telling only their own side of it.

When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong (I make mistakes all the time). However, when I'm right I don't pretend to be wrong to make someone else feel better. Especially when the other person is inflating his knowledge of events by winging the facts and pretending expertise where none exists.

Oh and one more suggestion. When you know something and some else doesn't it doesn't impress them when you act like god on high and we are children. In fact it makes you sound very very arrogant.

Was it Oscar Wilde that said: "The job of historians is to re-write history" ?
That is what most are best at ;)

When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong (I make mistakes all the time). However, when I'm right I don't pretend to be wrong to make someone else feel better. Especially when the other person is inflating his knowledge of events by winging the facts and pretending expertise where none exists.

And to be perfectly honest right now it sounds like your the inflating your knowledge. Not to sound skepticle but Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, doesn't really sound all that impartial, and i'm pretty sure they didn't get every aspect of it. makes me think of a quote i once heard "somewhere in the middle lies the truth".

Guess what. Bush had 90% of the military backing him up. Also it's pretty rare for a president to not be re-elected, and a war time president is usually ALWAYS re-elected. I won't say who I vited for, but I do think that foreign oppinion is what got Bush re-elected. Also if you haven't figured it out yet, I am an American.

Takrai
It appears that this thread has been killed off. It was a pleasure and an honor getting to talk to you. All of us stuck on the mainland appreciate what you guys have done and are still doing in iraq. If you get sent back take care of your self and be safe. God bless.
Scott Kumpula
US Air Force

Guess what. Bush had 90% of the military backing him up. Also it's pretty rare for a president to not be re-elected, and a war time president is usually ALWAYS re-elected. I won't say who I vited for, but I do think that foreign oppinion is what got Bush re-elected. Also if you haven't figured it out yet, I am an American.
Yes, he won handily in the military. Out of everyone I know enlisted or officer, in fact, I can think of only one who voted Kerry, and he did so he joked only to avoid it being a sweep.

Takrai
It appears that this thread has been killed off. It was a pleasure and an honor getting to talk to you. All of us stuck on the mainland appreciate what you guys have done and are still doing in iraq. If you get sent back take care of your self and be safe. God bless.
Scott Kumpula
US Air Force
Thanks Scott. Don't fret, you guys still might get to go to Korea or somewhere ;)(JUST KIDDING to you Dems who will probably freak at that)
Ron Munce
US Army

Ogiek, I assume your absence was just due to the late hour, and not to leaving rather than risk having a witness of events possibly alter your viewpoint that the US is some evil empire.

Guess what. Bush had 90% of the military backing him up. Also it's pretty rare for a president to not be re-elected, and a war time president is usually ALWAYS re-elected. I won't say who I vited for, but I do think that foreign oppinion is what got Bush re-elected. Also if you haven't figured it out yet, I am an American.

thats true, but remember the backgrounds of these soldiers.. the majority are not exactly the best informed or educated people in the world.. as in any professional army..

thats true, but remember the backgrounds of these soldiers.. the majority are not exactly the best informed or educated people in the world.. as in any professional army..
We are quite well informed with first hand knowledge of some of the issues this election. Also, professional armies tend to be professional,educated,etc. Most soldiers either have or are working on degrees, and pretty much all have at least HS and SOME college.
Compare that with the inner city Democrat vote, in areas comprised of HS drop outs in large percentages, etc. I mean no ill with that statement as I am sure you meant no ill with your own.