NationStates Jolt Archive

25,000 protesters arrived at the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to participate in the 2007 SOA Watch vigil to close the School of the Americas, Nov. 16 -18. The SOA, which trains military personal from Latin America in subjects like counter-insurgency recently changed names. It is now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, but name changes can not take away the bloody history of this tool of U.S. imperialism and oppression. SOA graduates have been implicated in killings, torture and massacres.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2007/12/soaprotest.htm
Comments?

Comments?

Good for the school. Teaching people the skills to protect their nations and cultures from revolutionaries and terrorists is an admirable goal.

Do some misuse those skills? Sure. So do some gradualtes of Harvard Law School.

We dont need no education.
We dont need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!

whats wrong with giving people an education!?

Good for the school. Teaching people the skills to protect their nations and cultures from revolutionaries and terrorists is an admirable goal.

Do some misuse those skills? Sure. So do some gradualtes of Harvard Law School.

The only Harvard grad who ever attached electrodes to my junk and shocked me was from the med school, not the JD program.

I have no problem with teaching security methods, but I hope the school in question doesn't endorse or use torture. If so, its doing more to attack the US Constitution then a lot of folks.

whats wrong with giving people an education!?

Put it in Latin and spray paint it on DeVry, you nihilist!

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.

The only Harvard grad who ever attached electrodes to my junk and shocked me was from the med school, not the JD program.

I have no problem with teaching security methods, but I hope the school in question doesn't endorse or use torture. If so, its doing more to attack the US Constitution then a lot of folks.

I seriously doubt they do. It's probably more like the military's counterterrorist and antiinsurgency courses - tactics, strategy, likely targets, how to find their supporters and shut down their networks, that sort of thing. It's pretty specific stuff - I had to do part of it in my security training when I was in the Marines. Aside from anything else, real interrogators don't find torture a useful tool - human beings can resist pain and discomfort a lot better than they can disorientation and exhaustion techniques, which, while gruelling, cause no lasting harm.

I seriously doubt they do. It's probably more like the military's counterterrorist and antiinsurgency courses - tactics, strategy, likely targets, how to find their supporters and shut down their networks, that sort of thing. It's pretty specific stuff - I had to do part of it in my security training when I was in the Marines. Aside from anything else, real interrogators don't find torture a useful tool - human beings can resist pain and discomfort a lot better than they can disorientation and exhaustion techniques, which, while gruelling, cause no lasting harm.

As a tangential question, do US people train in other countries by invitation at foreign military schools? Not obvious ones like other NATO countries, but South American or Asian countries?

Can imagine what the rugby team must look like...

If it really was a school of assassins, you'd think they'd simply squish (literally), the people who publish trope like this before they ever went public.

It's not so much the torture that annoys me about that place, but the hypocrisy. Every empire in history has tried to indoctrinate future leaders of their puppet states. Most were honest about it. The WHISA / SOA isn't. And if you are being hypocritical, it's usually because you aren't confident that what you are doing is in the interests of your own nation. If that's so, you really need to be asking questions...

Either stand up and be honest about what you do, and defend it, or don’t do it. But don’t hide.

They need better PR. Nobody ever protests the clown schools. :)

If it really was a school of assassins, you'd think they'd simply squish (literally), the people who publish trope like this before they ever went public.

No, they wouldn't.

The fact that the US is in the business of promoting state terrorism abroad in no way means that the government has the political capacity to repress speech here.

They need better PR. Nobody ever protests the clown schools. :)

I'll thank you not to refer to Yale that way. -Cecil

Comments?You don't need to be trained in the art of killing people to become a brutal murderer. If anything, well-trained armies tend to show more restraint than those that haven't had said benefit.

As a tangential question, do US people train in other countries by invitation at foreign military schools? Not obvious ones like other NATO countries, but South American or Asian countries?



Yes.

Israel's Mitkan Adam trains US troops at some occasions.

No, they wouldn't.

The fact that the US is in the business of promoting state terrorism abroad in no way means that the government has the political capacity to repress speech here.

What the heck does generic purpose guerrilla warfare have to do with the business of training professional contract killers? It's two entirely separate things.

Yes.

Israel's Mitkan Adam trains US troops at some occasions.

Cool, thanks.

I'm gonna google that, because I have no idea if that's a dude, or a university, or a military base, or two dudes who formed a company.

As a tangential question, do US people train in other countries by invitation at foreign military schools? Not obvious ones like other NATO countries, but South American or Asian countries?



To the extent where those nations have schools open to foreigners, yes. But, remember, for reasons of budget, few other nations beside the "obvious" ones (NATO nations, Japan, Korea, Israel, Australia) can match US training abilities.

The Brazilian Jungle Warfare school is particulary highly regarded.

US soldiers have also trained at India's Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare school, as have troops of other nations.

If by some chance you are ever capture, and you are on the wrong side, and the folks capturing you were trained in either the US School of the Americas, or the Indian CIJW, all else being equal you probably want your captors to be the American trained kind, despite the Media Mythology surrounding Fort Benning.

Also (and this escapes Media Tunnel Vision as well) bear in mind that Fort Benning is but a small part of the US effort in training foreign militaries, and at any given time there are quite a few foreign military personnel in the US. Part of this is because our NATO allies tend to be short on open range area, so the US and Canada are frequent hosts. There is a permanent German training base in New Mexico, for example, where Germans experience "tacos" and other facets of US culture.

What the heck does generic purpose guerrilla warfare have to do with the business of training professional contract killers?

The need to have a word that starts with the letter "A"?

The need to have a word that starts with the letter "A"?

Yes, guerrillas do occasionally assassinate people, but that's one part of their general outline. Contract killers are in the business of killing specific people for money. Are you going to claim that paramedics and firemen are the same thing just because firemen occasionally do CPR?

Two totally different things, and two totally different responses to public exposure.

To the extent where those nations have schools open to foreigners, yes. But, remember, for reasons of budget, few other nations beside the "obvious" ones (NATO nations, Japan, Korea, Israel, Australia) can match US training abilities.

The Brazilian Jungle Warfare school is particulary highly regarded.

US soldiers have also trained at India's Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare school, as have troops of other nations.

If by some chance you are ever capture, and you are on the wrong side, and the folks capturing you were trained in either the US School of the Americas, or the Indian CIJW, all else being equal you probably want your captors to be the American trained kind, despite the Media Mythology surrounding Fort Benning.

Also (and this escapes Media Tunnel Vision as well) bear in mind that Fort Benning is but a small part of the US effort in training foreign militaries, and at any given time there are quite a few foreign military personnel in the US. Part of this is because our NATO allies tend to be short on open range area, so the US and Canada are frequent hosts. There is a permanent German training base in New Mexico, for example, where Germans experience "tacos" and other facets of US culture.

Wow...is it true that in WWII, there was a POW camp in the Southwest US for German prisoners? Wonder if they use the same facilities...

Next time I'm in Baja, and some guy walks up and asks me, in a German accent, to quit eyeing his senorita, I'm gonna back down.

The SOA, which trains military personal from Latin America in subjects like counter-insurgency recently changed names.
Personal? Military personal transportation? Military personal showers? Military personal journals?

Seriously ... personal? :confused:

It's personnel.

So yeah, tell me again how education is a bad thing because right now, I think the education piece should begin a little closer to home. Sheesh.

Two totally different things, and two totally different responses to public exposure.

So?

First, we both know that you're being pointlessly pedantic about semantics... "assassin" is regularly used in a looser sense, especially in the relevant context of extrajudicial killing.

Second, the reason they chose "assassin" is painfully obvious--they needed a word that would fit with "Americas" to preserve the acronym.

Now, do you have an actual point to make?

Also (and this escapes Media Tunnel Vision as well) bear in mind that Fort Benning is but a small part of the US effort in training foreign militaries

Maybe, but the people protesting the SOA generally aren't particularly concerned with training foreign militaries as such.

Hence "School of the Assassins", not "School of the Foreigners."

First, we both know that you're being pointlessly pedantic about semantics... "assassin" is regularly used in a looser sense, especially in the relevant context of extrajudicial killing.

Pfft, semantics you say? Why not call murderers assassins then hmm? Just because I follow a much more accurate definition of things doesn't mean you have to try and attach your slapdash ideas of what it means on my arguments.


Second, the reason they chose "assassin" is painfully obvious--they needed a word that would fit with "Americas" to preserve the acronym.

Now, do you have an actual point to make?

Certainly. Because of the appeal to emotion by using charged terms like that, I point out how ridiculous it is when you consider what the appeal means when dissected.

Personal? Military personal transportation? Military personal showers? Military personal journals?

Seriously ... personal? :confused:

It's personnel.

So yeah, tell me again how education is a bad thing because right now, I think the education piece should begin a little closer to home. Sheesh.

One time, this guy at a nearby table to me in a bistro had the wrong salad brought to him. He very clearly said Caesar, and the waitress brought a house. He was right, and she was in the wrong.

He said something along the lines of "This is why you're a waitress at your age, now get me my correct salad."

She made a genuine error. But I'm not sure she was the most wrong.

The internet is just the internet, but we can still be civil with one another. Needless acrimony isn't fatal of course, we'll all survive it. But being mean is like farting in an elevator. It happens, and it won't kill us, but it still stinks.

Wow...is it true that in WWII, there was a POW camp in the Southwest US for German prisoners? Wonder if they use the same facilities...

Next time I'm in Baja, and some guy walks up and asks me, in a German accent, to quit eyeing his senorita, I'm gonna back down.


Dear lord I hope not! That would be incredibly insulting. The Germans are at Holloman AFB near Alamogordo. Here's an article on them, in German. It's kind of weird to see "Mayor of Alamogordo" rendered as "Bergermeister der Stadt Alamogordo" but what the heck, they're allies, it's cool. And stop eyeing der senorita-frau!


http://************/ypln5z


http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzKId_cJAclB2QH6kZiiXs5IokEpqfre-r4e-bmp-gH6BbmhEeWOjooAVm-y1A!!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMjBfSDlE?yw_contentURL=/01DB060000000001/W26PM7G7545INFODE/content.jsp

Why not call murderers assassins then hmm?

When you need it for an acronym? Go right ahead.

Of course, since they're talking about targeted political killings, the usage is substantially closer to the "precise" meaning than mere generic murder.

Because of the appeal to emotion by using charged terms like that

Yeah, it was a political protest. Of course they used charged terms. Who cares?

Dear lord I hope not! That would be incredibly insulting. The Germans are at Holloman AFB near Alamogordo. Here's an article on them, in German. It's kind of weird to see "Mayor of Alamogordo" rendered as "Bergermeister der Stadt Alamogordo" but what the heck, they're allies, it's cool. And stop eyeing der senorita-frau!
[/url]

Shit, why not, they host a big hospital for the US in Germany, don't they?

Couldn't help it, man...that curly haired German (went by Hubertus or something) was bogarting all the creamy cinnamon company in the Adelita Bar. Didn't look military, in retrospect.

Of course, I've never been in a fight, much less a Mexican bar fight, so he probably could have just rabbit punched me in the Schnitzel and sang "Deutchland Uber Alles" over my vomiting, teary eyed remnants.

Okay, this is off topic, but can it sometimes backfire to train foreign nationals? Not that a trained American couldn't do squirrely shite, and there is risk in everything I suppose. But the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, is he? What criteria can be applied to minimize the risk of training somebody who will turn on you later?

Shit, why not, they host a big hospital for the US in Germany, don't they?



Sorry. I meant, but it didn't come out right, that the FIRST part would have been insulting- hosting the Germans at ex-POW facilities.

Pfft, semantics you say? Why not call murderers assassins then hmm?
.

It's like Hair Stylist vs Barber. Any murderer can kill people for money. A good assassin, though, can kill people for a LOT of money.

There is a difference.

Shit, why not, they host a big hospital for the US in Germany, don't they?

Couldn't help it, man...that curly haired German (went by Hubertus or something) was bogarting all the creamy cinnamon company in the Adelita Bar. Didn't look military, in retrospect.

Of course, I've never been in a fight, much less a Mexican bar fight, so he probably could have just rabbit punched me in the Schnitzel and sang "Deutchland Uber Alles" over my vomiting, teary eyed remnants.

Okay, this is off topic, but can it sometimes backfire to train foreign nationals? Not that a trained American couldn't do squirrely shite, and there is risk in everything I suppose. But the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, is he? What criteria can be applied to minimize the risk of training somebody who will turn on you later?

It can't really be prevented. Both the US and Britain trained Japanese officers before WWII; likewise, German soldiers trained under the Soviets before Operation Barbarossa.

You just have to hope your diplomatic corps is up to snuff and keeps today's allies onside tomorrow. We've actually been pretty good at that of late.

Yeah, it was a political protest. Of course they used charged terms. Who cares?

People who are easily fooled by emotional terms and those who dissect it.

I'm surprised you voice this stance. Given the nature of NSG, the use of charged terms is rampant. If you really didn't care, I wager your presence on NSG would be near non-existent, which, if your post count is indicative, is clearly not.

Sorry. I meant, but it didn't come out right, that the FIRST part would have been insulting- hosting the Germans at ex-POW facilities.

Cool, my bad, that makes sense.

Okay, this is off topic, but can it sometimes backfire to train foreign nationals? Not that a trained American couldn't do squirrely shite, and there is risk in everything I suppose. But the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, is he? What criteria can be applied to minimize the risk of training somebody who will turn on you later?

This kind of cross-cultural contact is probably the best way of keeping allies as allies- or at least, if they ever become enemies, enemies with some level of mutual respect. Germans who train in the US, like Americans who train overseas, will come out of it with some deeper understanding of Americans as people, beyond what the media tells him to think.

Granted, it's New Mexico, one of our weirder states, but it's better than nothing.

Good for the school. Teaching people the skills to protect their nations and cultures from revolutionaries and terrorists is an admirable goal.

Do some misuse those skills? Sure. So do some gradualtes of Harvard Law School.


Protecting a national culture of elitist dictatorship wouldn't be an admirable goal as far as a great deal of persons would be concerned.....


I seriously doubt they do. .

Well then, theres a great deal of coincidence involved in latin American torturers and former students of that kip....


Israel's Mitkan Adam trains US troops at some occasions..

That may explain a great deal of the attitude not uncommon in Iraq then so.

It can't really be prevented. Both the US and Britain trained Japanese officers before WWII; likewise, German soldiers trained under the Soviets before Operation Barbarossa.

You just have to hope your diplomatic corps is up to snuff and keeps today's allies onside tomorrow. We've actually been pretty good at that of late.

Wow, I'd have guessed it was Russian guys training under the Germans, not the other way arround. Bet they got quite pissy with each other on the Eastern Front at places like Kursk or Stalingrad.

Hey Banya, I know that guy we went to school together!!

Really? Gonna talk to him?

No, I'm going to hammer a spent shell casing into his kneecap then cut his throat!!

Okay, but get the casing back after.

Yes, guerrillas do occasionally assassinate people, but that's one part of their general outline. Contract killers are in the business of killing specific people for money. Are you going to claim that paramedics and firemen are the same thing just because firemen occasionally do CPR?

Two totally different things, and two totally different responses to public exposure.Murder is Murder.

If you murder once a day or once a month, you are still a murderer.

Well then, theres a great deal of coincidence involved in latin American torturers and former students of that kip....



It's a Media Myth.

To make that assertion true, you would need to produce some figures:

How many Latin American soldiers has the SOTA trained?
How many of them have been proved to have been involved in torture?
and the biggy: how do these numbers compare to Latin American soldiers NOT trained by SOTA but of equivalent rank and status?

That's what people miss: Without a control group, you know nothing. You have less than zero. A control group changes EVERYTHING. For example, if you had 10 torturers among 100 SOTA graduates, but then 20 torturers among 100 equivalent non-graduates, the data would show that SOTA training is associated with a REDUCTION of torture.

(Note that I did not say "causes" a reduction- statistics never show a cause and effect relationship*, only the existence of an association, which may be an underlying common cause. For example, the type of soldier selected by a Latin American militaries for SOTA training might well have a pre-existing tendency towards or against torture. No one knows. Since the selection process is not random, we can't say that any SOTA class is statistically representative of any Latin American army at all.)

*Mumbling this aloud will get you thrown off a jury in a commercial liability case. It is, however, a fact.

Granted, it's New Mexico, one of our weirder states, but it's better than nothing.I have been at Holloman AFB, there is nothing to do at the local town, the Pilots all go party to CJ (Mexico)

Murder is Murder.

If you murder once a day or once a month, you are still a murderer.

I'm not a soldier and I have no training in killing people in any context, but for our purposes here, is sniping an enemy officer considered murder?

There seem to be some allegations that graduates of this place have commited atrocities, torture, widescale killing of non-combatants. I have no idea if any of that is true, but would we consider sniper training to be intrinsically murderous, if the activity were practiced against enemy soldiers only?

There seem to be some allegations that graduates of this place have committed atrocities, torture....The probability of it NOT being true is less than 0.01%
I have personally met with victims/survivors , with the Families of tortured/assassinated people, like I said the probability of all those unrelated people being part of a continent wide conspiracy is <0.01%

Protecting a national culture of elitist dictatorship wouldn't be an admirable goal as far as a great deal of persons would be concerned.....

Yeah...except that most of the time the revolutionaries are just trying to put another elitist dictator in power anyway. Most of the time the revolutionaries are trying to prevent reform, not cause it.

Better to let things be, allow the country to stabilise. If the people want a better system, reforming what you've got tends to do a better job.


Well then, theres a great deal of coincidence involved in latin American torturers and former students of that kip....


There's also the question of who do these countries send to get educated? And how many were scumbags long before they came to the school?

If this school was teaching such things as torture techniques and murder methodologies, it would come out, and not just in the left wing rantsheets. I don't trust governments as far as I could spit the Capitol, but the 'evidence' of impropriety here is laughable at best.

If it really was a school of assassins, you'd think they'd simply squish (literally), the people who publish trope like this before they ever went public.

America runs this school so that the governments of other countries can maintain military dictatorships. We don't have one here, so we get to say whatever we want. The problem is, our citizens think that other countries' problems are their own affair, so we needn't worry. Despite the fact that a lot of what is done to make them the hellholes they are is done either in the US, or by the US.

Good for the school. Teaching people the skills to protect their nations and cultures from revolutionaries and terrorists is an admirable goal.

Do some misuse those skills? Sure. So do some gradualtes of Harvard Law School.
Actually, I looked at the number, in terms of percent, you are more likely to become a mass murderer if you graduate from a Public High School than the School of the Americas. In fact, many of those who where Mass Murderers where trained in Electronics or Logistics, those kinds of behind the lines things that never necessitates even meeting a captive enemy.

The only Harvard grad who ever attached electrodes to my junk and shocked me was from the med school, not the JD program.

I have no problem with teaching security methods, but I hope the school in question doesn't endorse or use torture. If so, its doing more to attack the US Constitution then a lot of folks.
Well, they don't waste as much time at Harvard with the Human Rights Education that they do at the SoA. But they have to, as most from South America seem to think of Human Rights as the line of Revolutionaries.

I seriously doubt they do. It's probably more like the military's counterterrorist and antiinsurgency courses - tactics, strategy, likely targets, how to find their supporters and shut down their networks, that sort of thing. It's pretty specific stuff - I had to do part of it in my security training when I was in the Marines. Aside from anything else, real interrogators don't find torture a useful tool - human beings can resist pain and discomfort a lot better than they can disorientation and exhaustion techniques, which, while gruelling, cause no lasting harm.
Thank you for that, My GF and I have been arguing about whether disorientation or exhaustion should be used in interrogation, so I will be using that in our discussions.

You don't need to be trained in the art of killing people to become a brutal murderer. If anything, well-trained armies tend to show more restraint than those that haven't had said benefit.
Again, most of them are trained not to do so but we have to counter-act their training from their own nations, teach them Human Rights Protection, and how to protect those they serve.

Yes, guerrillas do occasionally assassinate people, but that's one part of their general outline. Contract killers are in the business of killing specific people for money. Are you going to claim that paramedics and firemen are the same thing just because firemen occasionally do CPR?

Two totally different things, and two totally different responses to public exposure.
It's a charged term, and isn't really a School of Assassins, but what it certainly is is a training school for anti-communist geurrillas who certainly do kill quite a lot of people in what the US sees as countries that need capitalist leadership.

What they get trained in is, essentially, how to become a member of the US special forces - they get trained in how to stir shit up, how to shoot, a lot of weapons training in general, interrogation techniques, counter-interrogation techniques, how to weaken supply chains etc. etc.

And the way that these groups keep getting weapons, training and so on and so forth from the US is that they kill the right people. To all intents and purposes, perhaps contract killers is the wrong term, but professional terrorists would be the right one.

Or "freedom fighters", if you prefer that.

...but professional terrorists would be the right one.

Or "freedom fighters", if you prefer that.someones terrorist is someone else freedom fighter

http://www.australiangamer.com/images/lego_starwars_2-luke_han_t.jpg

someones terrorist is someone else freedom fighter
Erm, sometimes. Occassionally they're just complete nutters, like the Lords' Resistance Army etc.

Okay, this is off topic, but can it sometimes backfire to train foreign nationals? Not that a trained American couldn't do squirrely shite, and there is risk in everything I suppose. But the enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend, is he? What criteria can be applied to minimize the risk of training somebody who will turn on you later?

Happens all the time. Besides the well known case of American trained islamists in Afghan jihad apart, there are many examples.

India trained LTTE in guerrilla warfare and LTTE killed a lot of the Indian Peace Keeping Force when it was there in Sri Lanka and later suicide bombed the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Erm, sometimes. Occassionally they're just complete nutters, like the Lords' Resistance Army etc.someone's complete-nutter is someone else's freedom Fighter.
you cant win, all your base are belong to me, someone set you up da bomb, it was me :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/87/231850890_fd1c20557a.jpg

That may explain a great deal of the attitude not uncommon in Iraq then so.

Good schools teach you to respect the enemy. American army personnel's attitude in Iraq's got nothing to do with Israel's attitude towards Arabs/Muslims.

You are just showing your own biases. ;)

Yeah...except that most of the time the revolutionaries are just trying to put another elitist dictator in power anyway. Most of the time the revolutionaries are trying to prevent reform, not cause it.
.

Thats a good one. Normally somebody says 'land reform' and theres a run to the pentagon. Honduras in the 50's, Chile in the 1970's.


Better to let things be, allow the country to stabilise. If the people want a better system, reforming what you've got tends to do a better job..

See above.

There's also the question of who do these countries send to get educated? And how many were scumbags long before they came to the school?..

I would have thought it blatantly fucking obvious that a right wing regime wasn't going to send left wing tree huggers to pat the 'peasants' on the head...


If this school was teaching such things as torture techniques and murder methodologies, it would come out, and not just in the left wing rantsheets. I don't trust governments as far as I could spit the Capitol, but the 'evidence' of impropriety here is laughable at best.

So when a government - like the Guatamalan junta in the 1980's - with a proven record of brutality, send trainees for use in operations, its "laughable" to assume that whatever they pick up within this college/school to assume that the government that sent them will use them to continue their trademark brutality? Somehow I think not. The US - by accepting them - becomes a willing party and accomplice to the regime(s) in question. Whether they specifically train them in torture or not is rather beside the point. Whatever military/intelligence knowledge they gain will be used to oppress.

Good schools teach you to respect the enemy. American army personnel's attitude in Iraq's got nothing to do with Israel's attitude towards Arabs/Muslims.


One might wonder. For instance, who would have thought that institutionalised torture could be become respectable within the US? Yet here we are. It has to have gained currency somehow, and the fact that a key US ally has no problem with it may well have helped.

25,000 idiots with way too much time on their hands and nothing important to do.

Props to the School of the Americas.

..who would have thought that institutionalized torture could be become respectable within the US? ...we are the "good guys" so.. If we do it, its not torture massive sarcasm

Thats a good one. Normally somebody says 'land reform' and theres a run to the pentagon. Honduras in the 50's, Chile in the 1970's.



See above.

Yeah, a common "policy" among revolutionary groups, expecially in South America, is land reform. But I can only think of one case where land reform was actually practiced - and that was by the democratically elected government of Peru back in the 1960's. Which didn't stop one of the big "policies" of the Shining Path being - you guessed it - land reform. In a country that didn't need it.

The situation in most of these tinpot states is that a small number of families control the country as an oligarchy, no matter the official governmental form. Revolutions don't happen to change the governments - they happen to change the families in charge. And of course, the current oligarchs fight to keep their power.

The real losers are always the general populace. They lose their livelihoods, businesses and homes in civil wars, maybe fight on one side or another, and nothing ever changes. All the money keeps going to the oligarchs, and taxes rise to pay for the army the oligarchs need to feel safe. Land reform is never even on the agenda, regardless of who wins.

Why did it happen in Peru? Because Peru was stable. No coups, no revolutions. Government became powerful enough to stand up to the oligarchy and have it's way. That ended in 1968 with the coup then, but the reformation had happened.

Long lasting, stable government is the only thing that will ever make these nations more than unfunny jests.


I would have thought it blatantly fucking obvious that a right wing regime wasn't going to send left wing tree huggers to pat the 'peasants' on the head...

Are you saying that all right wing officers are torturers and murderers?



So when a government - like the Guatamalan junta in the 1980's - with a proven record of brutality, send trainees for use in operations, its "laughable" to assume that whatever they pick up within this college/school to assume that the government that sent them will use them to continue their trademark brutality? Somehow I think not. The US - by accepting them - becomes a willing party and accomplice to the regime(s) in question. Whether they specifically train them in torture or not is rather beside the point. Whatever military/intelligence knowledge they gain will be used to oppress.

Bullshit.

We are NOT responsible for what others do. We are certainly responsible for our own actions - the assistance in the overthrow of Allende, support for the Contras in Nicaragua - but we are not responsible for theirs.

Frankly, I'm sick of this crap about the US being the worlds bogeyman. It's simply a lie, and a pervasive one. The truth is that 90% of the time, what happens is what would have happened anyway, even if we weren't even there.

And don't forget that we could have no influence in these countries at all if the inhabitants of those countries didn't want us there. We supported Pinochet - but we couldn't have made him President. Only the army of Chile could do that.

A teacher has NO responsibility for how the knowledge he teaches is used. Governments send people here to learn, we teach, they go back and implement - and they ALONE are responsible for their actions.

We are NOT responsible for what others do.

We are if we help them do it.

Are you really so morally primitive that you have no concept of "complicity"? If you give a known murderer a gun, do you not have some responsibility for the murders he commits with it?

The truth is that 90% of the time, what happens is what would have happened anyway, even if we weren't even there.

Speculative bullshit that runs against the simple fact that the US has no reason to bother if what it wants will happen anyway.

And don't forget that we could have no influence in these countries at all if the inhabitants of those countries didn't want us there.

Some of the inhabitants. So? I'm sure you could find some people in this country who would participate in a coup to establish a murderous dictatorship, too.

A teacher has NO responsibility for how the knowledge he teaches is used. Governments send people here to learn, we teach, they go back and implement - and they ALONE are responsible for their actions.

How conveniently abstract.

So, for instance, you would have no problem with someone who trains al-Qaeda members, as long as he or she personally doesn't participate in terrorism?

We are if we help them do it.

Are you really so morally primitive that you have no concept of "complicity"? If you give a known murderer a gun, do you not have some responsibility for the murders he commits with it?

Quite possibly. If I had reason to believe he would do so, or evidence therof.

Lacking such, no, I have no such responsibility.



Speculative bullshit that runs against the simple fact that the US has no reason to bother if what it wants will happen anyway.

Why are you assuming it's what we want? If we have a presence in a country and there's a coup, people scream "US involvement", regardless of any actual facts.

Some of the inhabitants. So? I'm sure you could find some people in this country who would participate in a coup to establish a murderous dictatorship, too.

Yes- but not enough to actually do it. We didn't overthrow Allende - we lent our support to Pinochet and the Army, and they did the deed.

If there isn't enough popular support for a coup, it isn't going to happen, no matter how much support we give. If there is, chances are we don't need to support it - but we do because it increases it's chances of success.



How conveniently abstract.

So, for instance, you would have no problem with someone who trains al-Qaeda members, as long as he or she personally doesn't participate in terrorism?

False equation.

If someone is teaching how to blow up civilians, hijack airliners - yeah, they are to blame if someone uses their teachings. Because those teachings have only one purpose.

If someone teaches basic tactics, counterintelligence operations and antiinsurgency stratagems - these have many purposes, and can be used many ways.

What kind of 'School of Assassins' lets 25,000 protestors within a shurikens throw of the grounds?

Quite possibly. If I had reason to believe he would do so, or evidence therof.

And in this case, either the US does, or is willfully blind, which is no better.

Why are you assuming it's what we want? If we have a presence in a country and there's a coup, people scream "US involvement", regardless of any actual facts.

So? In no way does that alter the historical record of repeated US support for coups.

If there isn't enough popular support for a coup, it isn't going to happen, no matter how much support we give.

But so what? The fact that a given act has support within a country doesn't make it any more legitimate.

If there is, chances are we don't need to support it

You're baselessly assuming the inefficacy of US intervention.

The US has wealth, power, and the means to project them... and historically both the US government and US corporations have been intimately involved in politics in Latin America (and elsewhere.)

but we do because it increases it's chances of success.

So now US support is effective? Make up your mind.

If the difference is miniscule, why risk the potential political trouble, both foreign and domestic? Not to mention the monetary costs.

If someone teaches basic tactics, counterintelligence operations and antiinsurgency stratagems - these have many purposes, and can be used many ways.

So, again, you'd be okay if someone taught al-Qaeda members those things, even if he knows (or should know) that they'll be used to help them commit terrorist acts?

whats wrong with giving people an education!?

Put it in Latin and spray paint it on DeVry, you nihilist!

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.

Uh, I could be wrong, but I'm thinking those lyrics were meant to be a protest against school discipline, not education.

And in this case, either the US does, or is willfully blind, which is no better.

No, we don't. Are some of these governments unpleasent? Yup. Will some of these people misuse their teachings? Probably. Now, point out which ones, and we'll refuse to teach them. Oh, you can't? Then how can we?



So? In no way does that alter the historical record of repeated US suport for coups.

But how many DID we support? And how many did we just stand by and let happen?



But so what? The fact that a given act has support within a country doesn't make it any more legitimate.

Of course it does. The ultimate arbiters of legitimacy are the people of that country - if they support an action, it's legitimate, if they don't, it isn't.



You're baselessly assuming the inefficacy of US intervention.

If we don't have support from inside the country, our support for an action has no worth at all. Hell, we've been trying to oust Castro for fifty years, to no effect.

The US has wealth, power, and the means to project them... and historically both the US government and US corporations have been intimately involved in politics in Latin America (and elsewhere.)

Yup. But with the exception of outright military adventurism (which we've been guilty of often enough, of course) we've always worked through groups within the country itself.

So now US support is effective? Make up your mind.

Don't be dense. Coups are an inherently risky undertaking - they fail far more often than they succeed. If a coup is going to happen, it's unlikely we could prevent it without military force - but likewise, we're not really able to make one out of whole cloth either. What we CAN do is lend our support to the side we like at the moment, and dramatically increase their chance of success at either overthrowing the government or of the governemnt surviving the attempt.


If the difference is miniscule, why risk the potential political trouble, both foreign and domestic? Not to mention the monetary costs.

Prior to the Cold War, it was mostly about money - gunboat economy, if you will. Back then, we didn't much care who was running things as long as US companies could exploit the hell out of them. We actually made money out of this shit.

Thankfully, after 1900 that sort of thing started to dwindle. It still happened, but US people started hearing about it and voicing their displeasure - companies like Chiquita couldn't call up a battalion of US Marines to break a picker's strike any more. By 1930 The US had pretty much stopped active involvement as a nation, though various companies were still heavily into manipulating the politics of Latin America for their own gain.

Then, of course, came the Cold War. The US and the USSR settled in for a half-century long chess game, with the world as the board, their close allies as the bishops, knights, queens and rooks, and everybody else got to be pawns - whether they liked it or not. South America was a particularly active section of the board.

I can actually defend this more easily than I could the earlier period (not that I do defend the earlier period). Back then, the motive was greed - but in the Cold War, the motive was survival. One side or the other was going to go down, and it wasn't unfair for the US to fight hard for it not to be them.



So, again, you'd be okay if someone taught al-Qaeda members those things, even if he knows (or should know) that they'll be used to help them commit terrorist acts?

I answered this last time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
Luis is also one of the graduates of this school.

Now, point out which ones, and we'll refuse to teach them.

Which governments? That's easy. Take a trip down to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch any day.

But how many DID we support?

Plenty. The overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala, for instance, which was pretty unambiguously a US project.

The ultimate arbiters of legitimacy are the people of that country - if they support an action, it's legitimate

You're equivocating, and I think you know it.

If the people in general support the intervention, that's one thing--but also is virtually never true. If some powerful groups are willing to cooperate with it, that's quite a different matter.

What we CAN do is lend our support to the side we like at the moment, and dramatically increase their chance of success at either overthrowing the government or of the governemnt surviving the attempt.

Then it is in fact not true that the US doesn't usually alter the outcome... not if we're talking about "dramatically increas" the chances one way or another.

Back then, the motive was greed - but in the Cold War, the motive was survival.

Nonsense. Soviet interference in Latin America--generally minuscule compared to US interference, and usually only substantial in [I]response to US intervention--posed no threat whatsoever to US survival. Furthermore, US intervention was usually not tied to any credible Soviet interference at all. Again, see the overthrow of Guatemala's Arbenz in 1954.

I answered this last time.

No, you didn't. You drew a distinction. Fine, I say--make the distinction. Take the lesser case--they're training them in tactics that aren't explicitly terrorist. Is it alright then?

Which governments? That's easy. Take a trip down to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch any day.

Which people.



You're equivocating, and I think you know it.

If the people in general support the intervention, that's one thing--but also is virtually never true. If some powerful groups are willing to cooperate with it, that's quite a different matter.

Then it is in fact not true that the US doesn't usually alter the outcome... not if we're talking about "dramatically increas" the chances one way or another.

I never said we didn't have an effect. We do - sometimes good, sometimes bad. But would the coup have happened anyway? Would there have been a revolution, or a rebellion? Usually, the answer is yes.



Nonsense. Soviet interference in Latin America--generally minuscule compared to US interference, and usually only substantial in [I]response to US intervention--posed no threat whatsoever to US survival. Furthermore, US intervention was usually not tied to any credible Soviet interference at all. Again, see the overthrow of Guatemala's Arbenz in 1954.

I don't know the Guatemala situation, so I can't comment there. But the Soviets were pumping just as much money into their pet projects in South America as the US was - and the US was matching the USSR in their stomping grounds in Africa. They were a bit better at hiding it - the US has been something of a bull in a china shop in latin america - but they were certainly there. They strongly supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and less defensibly, the Shining Path in Peru. They also provided money for the nasty little war in El Salvador.



No, you didn't. You drew a distinction. Fine, I say--make the distinction. Take the lesser case--they're training them in tactics that aren't explicitly terrorist. Is it alright then?

Actually, I don't see that as doing anything actually wrong.

So, based on your premise that what the person does with the education, is not the fault of the educator, I assume you have no problem with someone teaching Iranian scientists about rocketry, nuclear enrichment, etc. This technology has peaceful applications such as launching satellites, nuclear power, etc, so you can't use the excuse "Well that is just to make a nuke so it's different."

If you do have a problem with that, can you explain to me how you reconcile what to me, seems a hypocritical stance?

Good for the school. Teaching people the skills to protect their nations and cultures from revolutionaries and terrorists is an admirable goal.

Do some misuse those skills? Sure. So do some gradualtes of Harvard Law School.

Harvard Law School is not an extension of US government policy.

Which people.

Don't train people from the militaries of human rights abusers.

But would the coup have happened anyway? Would there have been a revolution, or a rebellion?

So? Would it have worked? Would it have had the same effect?

I don't know the Guatemala situation, so I can't comment there. But the Soviets were pumping just as much money into their pet projects in South America as the US was

No, they weren't. They backed Allende, but not the way the US backed any of its client states... and he, of course, was democratically elected.

and the US was matching the USSR in their stomping grounds in Africa.

That is true.

They were a bit better at hiding it

Perhaps because their actual presence was minor....

They strongly supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua,

Yes, they did. Nicaragua: that dagger aimed at the heart of the US. ;)

Nicaragua and Cuba were the only ones that even approached "client state" status, and even in those cases the regimes were independent and primarily domestically founded. (It's been eighteen years since the Soviets stopped aiding Cuba. It's still there.) Not comparable to the many right-wing regimes the US backed, or the interventions of US corporations.

and less defensibly, the Shining Path in Peru.

Did they? Sendero Luminoso is officially Maoist, and a split-off from the official Peruvian Communist Party that the Soviet Union would have backed.

They also provided money for the nasty little war in El Salvador.

Against a regime continually and ardently backed by the US.

Actually, I don't see that as doing anything actually wrong.

Um... that's interesting. At least you're consistent.

So, based on your premise that what the person does with the education, is not the fault of the educator, I assume you have no problem with someone teaching Iranian scientists about rocketry, nuclear enrichment, etc. This technology has peaceful applications such as launching satellites, nuclear power, etc, so you can't use the excuse "Well that is just to make a nuke so it's different."

If you do have a problem with that, can you explain to me how you reconcile what to me, seems a hypocritical stance?

It would be hypocrisy, if I actually opposed Iran having nukes. My only problem there is that they signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, and I believe nations should, generally, stick with treaties they've signed.

As it is, I consider Nuclear Non-Proliferation a fool's game. Any nation that wants them will get them, sooner or later.

Calling that place a school for assasins gives it a glamour it doesnt deserve. I usually refer to it as the school for nun-rapers. Not catchy enough to catch on, but its far more to the point in terms of objections to what its about.

Yeah, a common "policy" among revolutionary groups, expecially in South America, is land reform. But I can only think of one case where land reform was actually practiced - and that was by the democratically elected government of Peru back in the 1960's. Which didn't stop one of the big "policies" of the Shining Path being - you guessed it - land reform. In a country that didn't need it..

And what has that to do with either example I mentioned? Honduras saw its Government removed by a right wing coup before it could initiate land reform. A coup backed by the usa.


The situation in(..........)[/I] oligarchs fight to keep their power...

Spare me the shite. Two of those places had elected regimes overthrown by a right wing dictatorship and thats what often led to left wing attempts at resistance.


Long lasting, stable government is the only thing that will ever make these nations more than unfunny jests....

..which is something they can't have, if the US backs every maggot that decides to ditch the electoral process.


Are you saying that all right wing officers are torturers and murderers?....

That question in no way relates to the statement I made.


We are NOT responsible for what others do. We are certainly responsible for our own actions - the assistance in the overthrow of Allende, support for the Contras in Nicaragua - but we are not responsible for theirs...


You aren't allowed sell firearms to certain people because its taken that its likely they'll use that weapon to commit an offence. This is essentially handing out firearms to addicts at the crackhouse.


nkly, I'm sick of this crap about the US being the worlds bogeyman. It's simply a lie, and a pervasive one. The truth is that 90% of the time, what happens is what would have happened anyway, even if we weren't even there....


Awwww. You're sick of it? Fuck off to another country or vote for somebody with a brain is your two tickets to happiness there. Would pinochet have been a pariah without US support? Yes. Israel? Yes. Who got pol pot a UN seat? the US. Who helped supply the trucks and fuel that moved the rape squads in Guatamala? The US. Who fucked up democracy in Iran? The US.


And don't forget that we could have no influence in these countries at all if the inhabitants of those countries didn't want us there. We supported Pinochet - but we couldn't have made him President. Only the army of Chile could do that.....

some of the inhabitants. Like the way some of South Africas inhabitants were happy with the way the US protected them during the apartheid years. Presumably that makes that ok too....


A teacher has NO responsibility for how the knowledge he teaches is used. Governments send people here to learn, we teach, they go back and implement - and they ALONE are responsible for their actions.

So taking candidtates from a government with a 20-30 year track record of massacre, rape and torture, does not in anyway aid or help that government....So if Saddam sent a few lads over, and they ended up massacring a few Kurds, nobody could have seen that one coming?

It would be hypocrisy, if I actually opposed Iran having nukes. My only problem there is that they signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, and I believe nations should, generally, stick with treaties they've signed.

As it is, I consider Nuclear Non-Proliferation a fool's game. Any nation that wants them will get them, sooner or later.

Intriguing dodge. O.K. Hypothetical. Iran Nukes the US fleet in the Gulf, killing the largest amount of US military personnel since the entire Vietnam War, and Destroys Billions of dollars of U.S military hardware. You still think the U.S. scientists who educated them are not complicit?

Also, breaching treaties. Want to know how many the US has broken recently.?

Has the United States learned nothing from 9/11? Training people to be terrorists will only backfire on you.

Intriguing dodge. O.K. Hypothetical. Iran Nukes the US fleet in the Gulf, killing the largest amount of US military personnel since the entire Vietnam War, and Destroys Billions of dollars of U.S military hardware. You still think the U.S. scientists who educated them are not complicit?

No. Just as a person who teaches another how to use a gun is NOT complicit if, ten years later (or the following week) the taught person uses that gun on someone else.

In that case, the responsible people are the government of Iran. And I have no doubt that they (and everyone else in Iran) would reap the benefits therof about thirty minutes later.

Also, breaching treaties. Want to know how many the US has broken recently.?

Only major one I can think of recently was the renouncing of the ABM treaty. Which they haven't actually broken, btw, despite Russia's griping. The treaty specifies that each signatory may build one anti-missile facility. The US had never built one - Russia's defends Moscow.

No. Just as a person who teaches another how to use a gun is NOT complicit if, ten years later (or the following week) the taught person uses that gun on someone else.


And if the person trained is a known member of an organisation which has a proven track record of criminality, such as the Mafia and was in fact sent by same for training?

And if the person trained is a known member of an organisation which has a proven track record of criminality, such as the Mafia and was in fact sent by same for training?

Then I'd consider it a moral choice for the teacher. I wouldn't condemn him if he refused; but neither would I condemn him if he taught.

Then I'd consider it a moral choice for the teacher. I wouldn't condemn him if he refused; but neither would I condemn him if he taught.

So basically, you don't give rats ass who the US trains. Would that be fair assesment of your position?

So basically, you don't give rats ass who the US trains. Would that be fair assesment of your position?

Not quite - I wouldn't want then to train declared enemies of the US. That would be like teaching someone to use a gun when he's already declared he'll shoot you with it. Self-preservation is valid.

When I saw protestors on campus I'd point and laugh. It really didn't matter what it was they were protesting, just seeing so easily trolled people waste their time like that is hilarity enough.

As a tangential question, do US people train in other countries by invitation at foreign military schools? Not obvious ones like other NATO countries, but South American or Asian countries?

Can imagine what the rugby team must look like...Something like this I guess.:p

http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/who-are/images/marine-vignette.jpg

Not quite - I wouldn't want then to train declared enemies of the US. That would be like teaching someone to use a gun when he's already declared he'll shoot you with it. Self-preservation is valid.

So a candidates sponsoring states background does come into play when they are from a state where theres a clear pattern of violent anti-US behaviour, but not when its just violent behaviour against women, children, social activists and nuns...I'm with ye now. And if they happen to go back to their state and kill women children and nuns well....nobody can be blamed or held responsible, its just like training lawyers - you can't be expected to guess what they'll do when they go back to the 'real world'.

I see how your employment by the state has aided the devlopment of your world view. Certainly a life long civillian like myself would never be able to get my head squared away like that.

So a candidates sponsoring states background does come into play when they are from a state where theres a clear pattern of violent anti-US behaviour, but not when its just violent behaviour against women, children, social activists and nuns...I'm with ye now. And if they happen to go back to their state and kill women children and nuns well....nobody can be blamed or held responsible, its just like training lawyers - you can't be expected to guess what they'll do when they go back to the 'real world'.

I see how your employment by the state has aided the devlopment of your world view. Certainly a life long civillian like myself would never be able to get my head squared away like that.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I don't like any of that shit, I certainly don't support it. But I feel there is a point beyond which we are not responsible for others' actions.

In fact, I wouldn't train these people. But I feel that is a moral choice I can't make for others.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I don't like any of that shit, I certainly don't support it. But I feel there is a point beyond which we are not responsible for others' actions. .

I'm sure there is...However I think we've established that training the forces of a long standing brutal regime rather removes that excuse.


In fact, I wouldn't train these people. But I feel that is a moral choice I can't make for others.

Well in fairness I don't think that anyone in the military is normally asked if they object to carrying orders given by their Government, and it is a military training school afterall. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, its the US government and its policies (and successive ones at that) who are to blame.

Don't train people from the militaries of human rights abusers.

One of the major goals at the founding of the SoA was to train police and military and discipline and professionalize these services. This is based off of the lesson that, historically, the more highly trained and disciplined forces are the ones with less of a penchant for brutality and wanton acts of violence.


So? Would it have worked? Would it have had the same effect?

We can never know, can we?



No, they weren't. They backed Allende, but not the way the US backed any of its client states... and he, of course, was democratically elected.

And wrecking the country. Allende was proving to be a disaster for Chile, and his failed economic policies it's plausible that they might easily have wound up being responsible for far more deaths than those inflicted by the Junta.



Perhaps because their actual presence was minor....

Because Latin America was our back yard, just like Eastern Europe was the Soviet backyard.



Yes, they did. Nicaragua: that dagger aimed at the heart of the US. ;)

Nay, a dagger aimed at the heart of Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico and then the US. Or perhaps at Costa Rica and Panama, and then cutting the canal. Or countless other variations of significant strategic threats, if the USSR had the ability to supply guerrilla movements from the mainland of Latin America. Had the Soviet economic system not be entirely composed of flawed theories and major fail, they could have had a realistic potential for providing themselves with bases that could move against other states in the region.

Nicaragua and Cuba were the only ones that even approached "client state" status, and even in those cases the regimes were independent and primarily domestically founded. (It's been eighteen years since the Soviets stopped aiding Cuba. It's still there.) Not comparable to the many right-wing regimes the US backed, or the interventions of US corporations.

A far higher level of success than counter-state movements in the "back yard" of the USSR had. Look at what happened when purely neutral (and even openly socialist sometimes) movements erupted in Eastern Europe. Prague Spring, the Hungarian Revolt, the East German revolts, all brutally crushed by Soviet military intervention. Compared to that, our behavior in Latin America is super-clean.





Against a regime continually and ardently backed by the US.

And what does that say about Soviet intentions in the region?

This is based off of the lesson that, historically, the more highly trained and disciplined forces are the ones with less of a penchant for brutality and wanton acts of violence.

And where the fuck did that nugget of wisdom come from? "highly trained and disciplined forces" are historically less likely to run riot and out of control. However thats ignoring that brutality and targeted acts of extreme violence were what they were frequently used for. Secondly, if the government in charge of the army runs a regime based on systematic torture, assasination and rape, its blatantly obvious that thats exactly what those in the army will do when they arrive back.


And wrecking the country. Allende was proving to be a disaster for Chile, and his failed economic policies it's plausible that they might easily have wound up being responsible for far more deaths than those inflicted by the Junta.


So installing a military regime on the US in 2001 despite their electing Bush would be justifed? A lot of people think that Hillary will be a disaster. What if the Chinese sponsored a coup for your own good? Or does the pre-emptive act only count as valid for cases involving the brown voteless foriegn folk, safely out of view..


Nay, a dagger (.....)that could move against other states in the region.

O yes. And what better way to face revolutionary movements than to support the same people and conditions that led to their rise in the first place. Top class thinking there.....


Compared to that, our behavior in Latin America is super-clean.

The fact that the US didn't directly employ its own troops is about the only difference. It was every bit as dirty.

And wrecking the country. Allende was proving to be a disaster for Chile, and his failed economic policies it's plausible that they might easily have wound up being responsible for far more deaths than those inflicted by the Junta.
Glad to see you swallowing your propoganda. Allende did better for your average person than the people before or after him did.

Because Latin America was our back yard, just like Eastern Europe was the Soviet backyard.
Good to see that a nation's sovereign rights is directly related to their proximity to a world power. I thought the US constitution said something about everyone possessing the same rights. Silly me.


A far higher level of success than counter-state movements in the "back yard" of the USSR had. Look at what happened when purely neutral (and even openly socialist sometimes) movements erupted in Eastern Europe. Prague Spring, the Hungarian Revolt, the East German revolts, all brutally crushed by Soviet military intervention. Compared to that, our behavior in Latin America was much more clandestine.
Corrected your error.

Glad to see you swallowing your propoganda. Allende did better for your average person than the people before or after him did.


To be fair, we can't really say how good or bad Allende would have been. He simply wasn't in office long enough to get a real idea.

One of the major goals at the founding of the SoA was to train police and military and discipline and professionalize these services.

Yes, of course they'd say that. So what?

And wrecking the country. Allende was proving to be a disaster for Chile, and his failed economic policies it's plausible that they might easily have wound up being responsible for far more deaths than those inflicted by the Junta.

Nonsense. Allende's policies had their negative consequences, but not to the point of mass death... and in any case there were other ways to remove him from office than a military coup.

Or countless other variations of significant strategic threats, if the USSR had the ability to supply guerrilla movements from the mainland of Latin America.

That's a very weak basis, considering that with the exception of El Salvador (no more of a security threat) there were no such guerrilla movements, at least not ones capable of doing much.

Prague Spring, the Hungarian Revolt, the East German revolts, all brutally crushed by Soviet military intervention.

Yugoslavia, Iran, Afghanistan... the picture is not so simple.

And what does that say about Soviet intentions in the region?

Nothing. But we were speaking relatively.