NationStates Jolt Archive

*sighs*

You really are a jackass you know that? Please tell me how you can assert that a paper supported a coup or that the Brazilian elections should have been tampered with? You have to be a complete jackass if you believe this sort of shit.

I've seen the Washington Times, in an ACTUAL online article, call for a coup. So, yeah, why would I not believe that there are some newspapers, albeit commanded and staffed by the insane, that would favor this kind of action?

What's more, in 1964, the US SUPPORTED a coup here. In 1973, it did the same, actively, in Chile. And again in 2004 in Venezuela. Am I to attempt to disbelieve that as well? Is it that big a stretch to notice that likely some "people" there favor this?

Don't you think you're overreacting a bit?

Anyways, that's not too farfetched if you ask me. There are indeed some...arbitratry newspapers, even in the U.S.

All newspapers follow the agenda of their editors and owners. These agendas help the owners gain some control over politics and such, the biggest modern example being Rupert Murdoch. He supports the War in Iraq and so Fox News goes with that agenda, in 1997 he found it more beneficial to him to have the Labour Party win the election so The Sun, the biggest circling newspaper in the UK, urged its readers to vote for Labour because Murdoch wanted it.

The sooner everyone realises newspapers have agenda's the better. If the owner of a newspaper thinks it will be beneficial to them and their newspaper, then they would support a coup, war, political party etc..

I've seen the Washington Times, in an ACTUAL online article, call for a coup. So, yeah, why would I not believe that there are some newspapers, albeit commanded and staffed by the insane, that would favor this kind of action?

LInk it please.

Don't you think you're overreacting a bit?

No.

Because I know that most Americans would be in a rightful fit if it was suggested against them, because a dictatorship abolishes anything remotely like a lawful, rightful state, and because military rules result in civilian bloodshed.

I've seen the Washington Times, in an ACTUAL online article, call for a coup. So, yeah, why would I not believe that there are some newspapers, albeit commanded and staffed by the insane, that would favor this kind of action?

What's more, in 1964, the US SUPPORTED a coup here. In 1973, it did the same, actively, in Chile. And again in 2002 in Venezuela, the US goverment could had been involved in the support of some conservative parties who tried to seize power during a void of power. Am I to attempt to disbelieve that as well? Is it that big a stretch to notice that likely some "people" there favor this?


Fixed some bits, I hope you don't mind.

LInk it please.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Feb2003/bybee0203.html

Fixed some bits, I hope you don't mind.

I don't, because even assuming Venezuela never existed, the support for the coup in Chile is very obvious. As it was with most of South America.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Feb2003/bybee0203.html

The actual article Heikoku. I want to see the full article and not a snippet of it.

Unlike you, I actually read full articles and not snippets so do you have the full article?

I don't, because even assuming Venezuela never existed, the support for the coup in Chile is very obvious. As it was with most of South America.

Never denied that.

Just relax a bit. Media owners can be truly heinous. I should know, I work amongst them.

The original Pittsburgh Tribune Review article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_97436.html) that Heikoku's article cites blames the CIA for "doing nothing" to stop Lula being elected and thinks George Tenet should be fired for allowing Brazilians to elect a leftist. What exactly the CIA should have done to stop it is left to the imagination, but the Review goes on a big long rant about Letelier (an opponent of the Pinochet coup who was murdered in DC) deserved what he got for putting out pro-Allende propaganda and so on.

The original Pittsburgh Tribune Review article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_97436.html) that Heikoku's article cites blames the CIA for "doing nothing" to stop Lula being elected and thinks George Tenet should be fired for allowing Brazilians to elect a leftist. What exactly the CIA should have done to stop it is left to the imagination, but the Review goes on a big long rant about Letelier (an opponent of the Pinochet coup who was murdered in DC) deserved what he got for putting out pro-Allende propaganda and so on.

Well, there's the link.

The original Pittsburgh Tribune Review article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_97436.html) that Heikoku's article cites blames the CIA for "doing nothing" to stop Lula being elected and thinks George Tenet should be fired for allowing Brazilians to elect a leftist. What exactly the CIA should have done to stop it is left to the imagination, but the Review goes on a big long rant about Letelier (an opponent of the Pinochet coup who was murdered in DC) deserved what he got for putting out pro-Allende propaganda and so on.

One: Thanks for the article

Two: This was not even written by a person at the Trib

Three: The actual author is a British Journalist and Political Observer

Four: Its also a D.C. Column Article that the Tribune Review published.

Five: This in no way can be laid at their feet that they support a coup against Lula.

What's more, in 1964, the US SUPPORTED a coup here. In 1973, it did the same, actively, in Chile. And again in 2004 in Venezuela. Am I to attempt to disbelieve that as well? Is it that big a stretch to notice that likely some "people" there favor this?

Fucking right, man. Viva Salvador Allende!

This in no way can be laid at their feet that they support a coup against Lula.

What exactly DO they support then?

Just a tidbit: Not all coups are bad. The July 20 Plot comes to mind.

What exactly DO they support then?

You seem to know so much about the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, you tell me.

Oh and D.C. Dateline is an Opinion Piece.

One: Thanks for the article

Two: This was not even written by a person at the Trib

Three: The actual author is a British Journalist and Political Observer

Four: Its also a D.C. Column Article that the Tribune Review published.

Five: This in no way can be laid at their feet that they support a coup against Lula.\
1. You're welcome
2. It is by an anonymous columnist employed by the Trib: no other paper in the world carries this column
3. So?
4. Yes, exactly
5. I did say that they left it up to the imagination what the CIA was supposed to have done; it doesn't sound like they wanted the CIA to stage a coup against him, more like they wanted the election to have prevented in the first place, but yes, it is a little unclear.

\
1. You're welcome
2. It is by an anonymous columnist employed by the Trib: no other paper in the world carries this column
3. So?
4. Yes, exactly
5. I did say that they left it up to the imagination what the CIA was supposed to have done; it doesn't sound like they wanted the CIA to stage a coup against him, more like they wanted the election to have prevented in the first place, but yes, it is a little unclear.

Except for one thing:

It is still an opinion piece.

Just a tidbit: Not all coups are bad. The July 20 Plot comes to mind.

Not ONE of the leaders overthrown by US-supported coups here were bad ones. And Lula isn't either.

Not ONE of the leaders overthrown by US-supported coups here were bad ones. And Lula isn't either.

I totally agree! They failed to depose Chávez!

Except for one thing:

It is still an opinion piece.

By someone that seems to favor forcefully ignoring the opinions of majorities in South America.

So, that means the newspaper will publish any sort of tripe now?

How would you react if a newspaper published an Op/Ed that proposed a coup or election-rigging THERE in the US?

I totally agree! They failed to depose Chávez!

Aelosia, surely you can't be implying that Chávez is as bad as Hitler, and even more surely you can't be implying that a military junta dictatorship would be better than Chávez. Bad as he may or not be, there ARE worse things.

Just a small quip, but what's with the unpeople title? Your choice of words brings to mind Stalin-era Russia

Just a small quip, but what's with the unpeople title? Your choice of words brings to mind Stalin-era Russia

If a person favors my human rights forcefully taken away from me, I refuse to acknowledge them as being human. Quid pro quo.

Aelosia, surely you can't be implying that Chávez is as bad as Hitler, and even more surely you can't be implying that a military junta dictatorship would be better than Chávez. Bad as he may or not be, there ARE worse things.

Considering there was a thread just recently compairing Bush to Hitler, I don't see what your problem is. Bush is certainly no worse than Chavez.

If a person favors my human rights forcefully taken away from me, I refuse to acknowledge them as being human. Quid pro quo.

Well, if something is non-human you should have no problem with killing it. So if a murderer kill's your close friend they took away his right to live. Therefor, not being Human, they can be put to death with no problem.

Considering there was a thread just recently compairing Bush to Hitler, I don't see what your problem is. Bush is certainly no worse than Chavez.

Did Chavez invade a country, destroy its infrastructure and caused countless deaths in the process over 5 years while I wasn't looking?

By someone that seems to favor forcefully ignoring the opinions of majorities in South America.

So? The person in question is entitled to their own opinion.

So, that means the newspaper will publish any sort of tripe now?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Freedom of the press.

How would you react if a newspaper published an Op/Ed that proposed a coup or election-rigging THERE in the US?

If its an op-ed, I wouldn't care. ITs one person's opinion.

Well, if something is non-human you should have no problem with killing it. So if a murderer kill's your close friend they took away his right to live. Therefor, not being Human, they can be put to death with no problem.

Where did you make the jump to "If it isn't human it is perfectly fine to kill". This entire post was just jumping from one conclusion to the next.

Did Chavez invade a country, destroy its infrastructure and caused countless deaths in the process over 5 years while I wasn't looking?

That was approved by congress and the majority of our country, you can't pin a war on one man. Even if you foolishly do, Chavez is buddies with terrorists and dictatorial regimes, so he isn't any better than Bush.

Well, if something is non-human you should have no problem with killing it. So if a murderer kill's your close friend they took away his right to live. Therefor, not being Human, they can be put to death with no problem.

1- Why, wouldn't you have a problem shooting a cat, for instance?

2- Pain is worse than death, because one has to live with pain.

That was approved by congress and the majority of our country, you can't pin a war on one man. Even if you foolishly do, Chavez is buddies with terrorists and dictatorial regimes, so he isn't any better than Bush.

Define "buddies". Unless he FUNDS them, and then to the point where they'd not BE there were it not for him, you're full of it.

Also, is Bush not "buddies" with Musharraf, and the Saudi Arabian royalty, and so on? What the hell is your point?

Click Stand;13593053']Where did you make the jump to "If it isn't human it is perfectly fine to kill". This entire post was just jumping from one conclusion to the next.

Most sane people have no problem with killing an (for example) animal (non-human) that has harmed or killed a human. Considering his wording, it's not an extreme conclusion to jump too.

Most sane people have no problem with killing an animal (non-human) that has harmed or killed a human. Considering his wording, it's not an extreme conclusion to jump too.

You see, they aren't "animals that attacked a human".

They're just animals.

Most sane people have no problem with killing an (for example) animal (non-human) that has harmed or killed a human. Considering his wording, it's not an extreme conclusion to jump too.

No, you said since it made them un-human then it was fine to kill it. This implies that it is okay to kill any non-human thing. That is, unless you consider dogs that haven't killed people to be human.

Edit: Damn you Heikoku for stealing my response in a much more eloquent manner!

Define "buddies". Unless he FUNDS them, and then to the point where they'd not BE there were it not for him, you're full of it.

Also, is Bush not "buddies" with Musharraf, and the Saudi Arabian royalty, and so on? What the hell is your point?

Bush personally? No. His administration or our whole Government? Possibly. But again, you can't pin crimes of a nation on one man. Even Hitler had his behind the scenes men.

So? The person in question is entitled to their own opinion.

No, they aren't.

If they don't think I'm entitled to my opinion, then they aren't entitled to theirs.

I've seen the Washington Times, in an ACTUAL online article, call for a coup. So, yeah, why would I not believe that there are some newspapers, albeit commanded and staffed by the insane, that would favor this kind of action?

The Times sucks, I mean, the Washington Times really sucks. It's an also-ran newspaper, in a city which the Post already dominates, and provides a significantly greater degree of excellent journalism. Saying that what the Post writes is worth an amount equal that of much of anything is merely agitating.

When I was in Washington, not even the most conservative people I worked with read the Times. It is a joke to read the Times, and putting any stock in their support for a Coup d'etat against

What's more, in 1964, the US SUPPORTED a coup here. In 1973, it did the same, actively, in Chile. And again in 2004 in Venezuela. Am I to attempt to disbelieve that as well? Is it that big a stretch to notice that likely some "people" there favor this?

The 2002 coup d'etat was supported by the US only in our recognition of the coup government. There's all sorts of fanciful theories purported by the Chavez government, largely for domestic consumption, but the credibility of these claims are at best, quite questionable.

Meanwhile, the '64 and '73 coup d'etat were driven largely by Cold War era concerns, Brazil especially fueled by the "lessons" of Cuba. A bad idea, sure, but it must be understood in the light of the "lessons" the US has learned. Chile was done by the criminal Nixon administration, as a personal project of the perpetual douchebag Henry Kissinger, who should probably be tried for his role in that, amongst other things.

Bush personally? No. His administration or our whole Government? Possibly. But again, you can't pin crimes of a nation on one man. Even Hitler had his behind the scenes men.

And why would Chávez be personally responsible for it while Bush isn't?

Click Stand;13593065']No, you said since it made them un-human then it was fine to kill it. This implies that it is okay to kill any non-human thing. That is, unless you consider dogs that haven't killed people to be human.

I can see where I may have made a mistake in my wording. I mean that most sane people have no problem with killing an (for example) animal that has harmed a real person. By the OP's view, a murderer would be a un-person. Therefor, having harmed someone and being a un-person they should die.

Click Stand;13593053']Where did you make the jump to "If it isn't human it is perfectly fine to kill". This entire post was just jumping from one conclusion to the next.

Read the thread title!

UNPEOPLE :D

Not ONE of the leaders overthrown by US-supported coups here were bad ones. And Lula isn't either.

Allende was pretty god-awful, of course, the US proceeded incorrectly throughout the entire process, by supporting Pinochet, then giving him blank checks for his rule, and so on. There were methods to remove Allende that didn't involve a coup d'etat.

Meanwhile, the '64 and '73 coup d'etat were driven largely by Cold War era concerns, Brazil especially fueled by the "lessons" of Cuba. A bad idea, sure, but it must be understood in the light of the "lessons" the US has learned. Chile was done by the criminal Nixon administration, as a personal project of the perpetual douchebag Henry Kissinger, who should probably be tried for his role in that, amongst other things.

True. However, my point remains that some non-people DO BELIEVE these actions were justified, or that they should be undertaken again at some point.

So, that means the newspaper will publish any sort of tripe now?

The Washington Times?

Yeah. That about sums it up.

Allende was pretty god-awful, of course, the US proceeded incorrectly throughout the entire process, by supporting Pinochet, then giving him blank checks for his rule, and so on. There were methods to remove Allende that didn't involve a coup d'etat.

He was a democratically elected leader that was not attacking other nations. There weren't SUPPOSED to be methods to removing Allende, it was NOT the right of the US to do so!

Not ONE of the leaders overthrown by US-supported coups here were bad ones. And Lula isn't either.

Agreed.

And I actually like Lula, even though he and I couldn't be further apart politically.

He was a democratically elected leader that was not attacking other nations. There weren't SUPPOSED to be methods to removing Allende, it was NOT the right of the US to do so!

He was gutting Chile, though, and creating an environment that was increasingly hostile to open and democratic discourse in that country.

What the US should have done is provided monetary assistance, cultural ambassador programs and specialized trade deals with Chile to counter the country-wracking that Allende was carrying out, to try to grow a more positive view of the United States, and a decreased desire to seek such a radical path such as what Allende was increasingly pursuing.

There weren't SUPPOSED to be methods to removing Allende, it was NOT the right of the US to do so!

Agreed. I personally think Allende was terrible, but had I been President of the U.S. at the time, I would have done nothing except continue to trade with, and maintain diplomatic relations with, Chile.

Agreed.

And I actually like Lula, even though he and I couldn't be further apart politically.

As do I.

I feel that Lula is precisely the sort of leader that Brazil needs. An ardent democrat, who is willing to work to maintain and grow a democratic system, and to break out of the brutal cycle of unstable governments that has plagued so many of the inhabitants of the region.

You seem to know so much about the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, you tell me.

Oh and D.C. Dateline is an Opinion Piece.
Nice back pedalling. :rolleyes:

I think you owe Heikoku a huge apology.

Aelosia, surely you can't be implying that Chávez is as bad as Hitler, and even more surely you can't be implying that a military junta dictatorship would be better than Chávez. Bad as he may or not be, there ARE worse things.

Not really, there are worse things, I know, and being invaded and occupied by US forces is actually one of them, but you applied the adjective "good" to the ledaders you mentioned, and I added a bit of a joke there.

And for the record, Lula is my favourite american leader. I hope he stays as long as he can in office, and continues with the good work.

He was gutting Chile, though, and creating an environment that was increasingly hostile to open and democratic discourse in that country.

What the US should have done is provided monetary assistance, cultural ambassador programs and specialized trade deals with Chile to counter the country-wracking that Allende was carrying out, to try to grow a more positive view of the United States, and a decreased desire to seek such a radical path such as what Allende was increasingly pursuing.

1- That's arguable.

2- That IS a better method, mainly because it HELPS the other country and it doesn't FORCE them to behave in other ways.

Nice back pedalling. :rolleyes:

I think you owe Heikoku a huge apology.

Meh. This is NSG. Two posters enter. One poster leaves.

2- That IS a better method, mainly because it HELPS the other country and it doesn't FORCE them to behave in other ways.

Quite true. An effective administration, with its moral credentials intact could have handled the situation far more effectively.

Unfortunately, the Nixon administration was collapsing in on itself at the time of the Chilean coup d'etat. They were embroiled in the middle of the Watergate scandal, which would mar American politics for years (so much so, that every single scandal these days must, quite inexplicably, receive a name that ends in -gate), and it should seem quite clear that the Nixon administration had their moral compass shot straight to hell. Likely, Kissinger wasn't receiving any oversight from anybody, and his ability to dick around inside the system went unchecked.

Meh. This is NSG. Two posters enter. One poster leaves.
For these two flames, he owes you an apology:

Do you know anything about the Pittsburgh Tribune Review? No you don't. I do though for I used to read it ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!!!

*sighs*

You really are a jackass you know that? Please tell me how you can assert that a paper supported a coup or that the Brazilian elections should have been tampered with? You have to be a complete jackass if you believe this sort of shit.
Especially since he has been shown the truth and is now back pedalling.

They were embroiled in the middle of the Watergate scandal, which would mar American politics for years (so much so, that every single scandal these days must, quite inexplicably, receive a name that ends in -gate)

1- The problem with that assessment is that LBJ's administration supported '64, for instance.

2- Etymology explains it.

Especially since he has been shown the truth and is now back pedalling.

The first one isn't a flame. The second one is.

Snip.

He doesn't.

Well, he MIGHT, yes, but it's just against my nature to force an opponent to handicap himself by apologizing - which may weaken him.

I have a strange fighting code regarding arguing.

Bush personally? No. His administration or our whole Government? Possibly. But again, you can't pin crimes of a nation on one man. Even Hitler had his behind the scenes men.

Its a well known fact that Bush and the Bush family are rather cozy with the House of Saud.

He doesn't.

Well, he MIGHT, yes, but it's just against my nature to force an opponent to handicap himself by apologizing - which may weaken him.

I have a strange fighting code regarding arguing.
It shouldn't be a matter of him being "forced" to give you an apology, it is more a matter that he should do so on his own.

Kudos for your own restraint. :)

Its a well known fact that Bush and the Bush family are rather cozy with the House of Saud.

Too cozy.

Kudos for your own restraint. :)

It's not restraint. It's more like... Bushido. :p

1- The problem with that assessment is that LBJ's administration supported '64, for instance.

Brazil in '64 is closely linked to the "lessons" of Cuba, which were made exceptionally salient by the Missile Crisis, and Oswald's desire to relocate to said country after killing Kennedy. Further, LBJ was plagued by that curse which has struck at the heart of every single American center-left president since 1917, the view that they might be "soft" on Bolshevism, and thus, they lash out at everything they remotely perceive as such. Given LBJ's domestic record in regards to civil rights and the welfare state, he was likely In retrospect, the rationale doesn't work so well, given how different the two countries were, but the climate and political attitudes give us insight into why the US supported the Brazilian coup.

2- Etymology explains it.

Soooo clever :)

No, they aren't.

They're not? WOW!!!

If they don't think I'm entitled to my opinion, then they aren't entitled to theirs.

Who says that you are not entitled to your opinion?

Who says that you are not entitled to your opinion?

If they want a coup in my country against a democratically elected government, such a coup would, effectively, revoke my right to free speech - and my rights to several other things.

They say that I am not entitled to my opinion that way.

And that means that I have the right to deny them such a right; THEY wanted to deny mine first.

Nice back pedalling. :rolleyes:

I think you owe Heikoku a huge apology.

So how is stating something a backpeddle? Oh wait. Nevermind. I forgot that foreigners seem to know more about the Tribune Review than most Pittsburghers.

So how is stating something a backpeddle? Oh wait. Nevermind. I forgot that foreigners seem to know more about the Tribune Review than most Pittsburghers.

It started with some Pittsburghers claiming to know SO MUCH MORE about MY country than ME that they want ME to be forced to shut up about MY OWN COUNTRY.

So why don't you tell us all about arrogance.

For these two flames, he owes you an apology:




Especially since he has been shown the truth and is now back pedalling.

You forgot that what started the thread in the first place was that he said that the Pittsburgh Tribune Review supports a coup in Brazil which has yet to be proven that they actually do.

All I did was take the link so thoughtfully provided and showed that it was written by someone who is not even American and that it is an opinion expressed by said person.

If they want a coup in my country against a democratically elected government, such a coup would, effectively, revoke my right to free speech - and my rights to several other things.

Now who is this they you are referring to?

They say that I am not entitled to my opinion that way.

And that would be?

And that means that I have the right to deny them such a right; THEY wanted to deny mine first.

You still haven't proved any assertions yet.

Now who is this they you are referring to?

They say that I am not entitled to my opinion that way.

And that would be?



You still haven't proved any assertions yet.

That would be the moron that somehow managed to write that article.

It started with some Pittsburghers claiming to know SO MUCH MORE about MY country than ME that they want ME to be forced to shut up about MY OWN COUNTRY.

So why don't you tell us all about arrogance.

I guess you really haven't read the article in question for if you scrolled down to the very bottom, you would have read that it was a BRITISH JOURNALIST in WASHINGTON D.C. and not Pittsburgh.

Good job though in trying to blame this one on Pittsburgh when it wasn't even a citizen who wrote the damn thing.

That would be the moron that somehow managed to write that article.

Now there we agree that the dude in question is a fucktard but do not blame an entire paper for one stupid fool who probably knows jack shit about what he was writing about.

This sounds a lot like someone calling for newspapers to stop publishing certain cartoons.

There is no right not to be offended. That extends to people who write silly conspiracy theories about leaders who are really being quite reasonable, such as Lula (but man, that zmag article was hacking away at strawmen like there's no tomorrow), as well as people who then read these theories after they've been filtered through left-leaning websites to paint a certain picture of the US.

The only people who profit are those who sell Danish...excuse me, I meant American flags.

This sounds a lot like someone calling for newspapers to stop publishing certain cartoons.

There is no right not to be offended. That extends to people who write silly conspiracy theories about leaders who are really being quite reasonable, such as Lula (but man, that zmag article was hacking away at strawmen like there's no tomorrow), as well as people who then read these theories after they've been filtered through left-leaning websites to paint a certain picture of the US.

The only people who profit are those who sell Danish...excuse me, I meant American flags.

THEY called for MY rights to be eschewed FIRST.

There's a difference between offending a religious icon and calling for the rights of millions to be abolished.

If THEY will call for MY rights to be eschewed, Newton's Third Law of Motion requests me to do the same.

THEY called for MY rights to be eschewed FIRST.

There's a difference between offending a religious icon and calling for the rights of millions to be abolished.

If THEY will call for MY rights to be eschewed, Newton's Third Law of Motion requests me to do the same.

ONE PERSON called for it. Now who the fuck is this they you keep blabbering on about?

Now there we agree that the dude in question is a fucktard but do not blame an entire paper for one stupid fool who probably knows jack shit about what he was writing about.

Why did the paper even publish this guy's article? I mean, I need a job, I can write. And I'm better than the guy that wrote the article.

ONE PERSON called for it. Now who the fuck is this they you keep blabbering on about?

And do newspapers publish Op/Eds with which they wildly disagree there?

Why did the paper even publish this guy's article? I mean, I need a job, I can write. And I'm better than the guy that wrote the article.

I guess you didn't read the part about FREEDOM OF THE PRESS! You know...that pesky thing we have called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Also falls under Free Speech and probably Freedom of Expression as well.

And do newspapers publish Op/Eds with which they wildly disagree there?

Actually...yes.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 8 seconds.

I guess you didn't read the part about FREEDOM OF THE PRESS! You know...that pesky thing we have called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Also falls under Free Speech and probably Freedom of Expression as well.

You mean the same thing the guy supported the elimination of HERE?

Good for the gander, good for the goose!

THEY called for MY rights to be eschewed FIRST.
And yet nothing happened. That's because what they call for is utterly irrelevant to you.

If the US government starts calling for Lula to be overthrown and takes some action towards that end, we can start talking. As it is, talking about how something some random dude writing for some random newspaper has offended you can certainly be liberating for you, but doesn't allow us to make any conclusions regarding US policy or Brazilian democracy, nor does it allow us to start calling for censorship of any form.

Were the guy who wrote the article here, I'd tell him he's an idiot and I'd explain to him why that is. For good or bad, he isn't so I've gotta talk to you instead. I can certainly explain to you why free speech is important and why any offense you have taken at the content of the article doesn't justify its limitation, but I think you know it already.

But if you ever came into the position where you could do more than just talk, ie you don't just say they're "unpeople" but actually treat them as such, then it would be you who is starting the violation of very real rights, and it would be you who people have to defend themselves against.

In short: the angry mobs burning Danish flags didn't understand that what someone in a Danish paper writes and what the Danish government or citizens stand for are two entirely seperate things. You are making the same mistake about the US every time you start talking about the threat of US interference in Latin American affairs, supporting it with stupid stuff stupid people wrote in newspapers.

Snip.

I didn't say anything about US policy. I just would enjoy seeing him treated the way he would like seeing ME treated.

I didn't say anything about US policy.
Now. Usually you do, and you have in the past used the claim about people writing things in newspapers as "evidence" that the Americans are after you.

I just would enjoy seeing him treated the way he would like seeing ME treated.
Which doesn't exactly speak kindly of your own conviction regarding basic rules of human interaction.

Which doesn't exactly speak kindly of your own conviction regarding basic rules of human interaction.

I'm Chaotic Neutral, not Lawful Good.

And do newspapers publish Op/Eds with which they wildly disagree there?

Quite regularly.

I didn't say anything about US policy. I just would enjoy seeing him treated the way he would like seeing ME treated.

You are petty as all hell.

You are petty as all hell.

I am, aren't I? Ah well.

All newspapers follow the agenda of their editors and owners. These agendas help the owners gain some control over politics and such, the biggest modern example being Rupert Murdoch. He supports the War in Iraq and so Fox News goes with that agenda, in 1997 he found it more beneficial to him to have the Labour Party win the election so The Sun, the biggest circling newspaper in the UK, urged its readers to vote for Labour because Murdoch wanted it.

The sooner everyone realises newspapers have agenda's the better. If the owner of a newspaper thinks it will be beneficial to them and their newspaper, then they would support a coup, war, political party etc..

Try reading the Guardian, and all of its recommendations for the US... lol

Except for one thing:

It is still an opinion piece.
It is the opinion of the Tribune Review, yes.
This is not a case involving a syndicated columnist, picked up by several newspapers who like to have a variety of opinions appear on their pages (Kristol is carried by the New York Times, but his opinions clearly are not those of the editors of the New York Times, for example). This is a columnist hired by this paper, and by this paper alone, because the Tribune Review likes those opinions, and no other kind of opinions.

1- Why, wouldn't you have a problem shooting a cat, for instance?

2- Pain is worse than death, because one has to live with pain.


For one, if said cat killed or seriously injured a person, no I wouldn't have a problem shooting it. For two, i'm not sure what you're getting at.

I am, aren't I? Ah well.

Perhaps this may come off sounding as if I'm a pompous ass, but reading your posts, I just feel so much wiser and more enlightened than you are. You're like a child in a playpen. It's an exhilirating feeling on my part.

And why would Chávez be personally responsible for it while Bush isn't?

He wouldn't be. All i'm trying to say is that Bush is no worse than Chavez.

Its a well known fact that Bush and the Bush family are rather cozy with the House of Saud.

Is it? You still can't pin the crimes of a nation on one man anymore than you can pin the crimes of one black or white man to their respective races.

Perhaps this may come off sounding as if I'm a pompous ass, but reading your posts, I just feel so much wiser and more enlightened than you are. You're like a child in a playpen. It's an exhilirating feeling on my part.

Funny. I say these same things about so many people here.

Not that different, are we?

He wouldn't be. All i'm trying to say is that Bush is no worse than Chavez.

Again: For Chavez to catch up with Bush, he still has a LOT more death to cause.

Funny. I say these same things about so many people here.

Not that different, are we?

How do you put that little ' over the a in Chavez?

Again: For Chavez to catch up with Bush, he still has a LOT more death to cause.

It is Saddam and the terrorists who are responsible for most of those deaths. The deaths of the rest are spread over all of the Government, not just Bush.



Chavez is no pillar of Human rights like you seem to think he is, his administrations buddying up with terrorists places him lower on the "good leader scale" than you think he is.

How do you put that little ' over the a in Chavez?
Alt + 0225: á

Alt + 0225: á

Didn't work.

It is Saddam and the terrorists who are responsible for most of those deaths. The deaths of the rest are spread over all of the Government, not just Bush.



Chavez is no pillar of Human rights like you seem to think he is, his administrations buddying up with terrorists places him lower on the "good leader scale" than you think he is.

I don't think highly of Chávez. I think him above Bush. Two different things. You either think too highly of Bush or too lowly of Chávez.

As for the `, Brazilian language keyboard.

Didn't work.
Aw.

alt + 160: á

You forgot that what started the thread in the first place was that he said that the Pittsburgh Tribune Review supports a coup in Brazil which has yet to be proven that they actually do.

All I did was take the link so thoughtfully provided and showed that it was written by someone who is not even American and that it is an opinion expressed by said person.
So the fact that this article ends up in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review means that they concur with the gist of the article?

Do they agree with these statements from the article:

But this column is about the guilty men and women in Washington, whose knowing neglect and perfidy have enabled Lula to be so near to the presidency.

In 1990, Lula went international. With Castro, Chavez and Nicaragua's Danny Ortega, he formed an "all Marxists are welcome" club with a special welcome mat for terrorists. It is called the "Forum of Sao Paolo."

How did this happen without the United States noticing and doing something to stop a Marxist takeover? Easily.

The most dangerous man in Washington, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, allowed it to happen by doing what he does best — nothing.
So your rag of a newspaper in Pittsburgh published this garbage, supporting intervention into another country's democratic affairs, and obviously supports the message?

I noticed that the article is not signed. How convenient to blame it on "a Washington-based British journalist and political observer".

I noticed that the article is not signed. How convenient to blame it on "a Washington-based British journalist and political observer".
He's been writing the same kind of godawful tripe (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_552792.html) for them for years. The recent piece that I link to makes it appear quite dubious that this guy, whoever he is, really is a "British" journalist; he has been in the US for forty years at least.

He's been writing the same kind of godawful tripe (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_552792.html) for them for years. The recent piece that I link to makes it appear quite dubious that this guy, whoever he is, really is a "British" journalist; he has been in the US for forty years at least.
Did you read the rebuttal at the bottom of that garbage?

Rebuttal: Jim Abourezk responds

Mr. Editor:

I have just been given an article written by an anonymous columnist in your newspaper ("Barack Obama's men," Dateline D.C.," Feb. 10 and PghTrib.com).

I note that your rules for letter-to-the-editor writers say they must disclose their name, but the same is not true for your "Washington, D.C.-based British journalist and political observer," who remains anonymous during his completely inaccurate column about me.

In the column, Mr. Anonymous matter-of-factly states that I am the godfather of the Obama campaign, that I named Tom Daschle as a mutual contact with Obama, and that Daschle is vital as a "messenger for Abourezk."

I don't know how much you pay this anonymous British journalist, but whatever it is, it's not enough for the creation of the kind of marvelous fiction he writes. For the record, I have nothing to do with Daschle, Obama or the Obama campaign, and I have never had any connection or contact with it............
I guess it refers to this article:

Barack Obama's men (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_551642.html)

Careful, or we'll get merged into the Obama,Obama,Obama thread!

I don't think highly of Chávez. I think him above Bush. Two different things. You either think too highly of Bush or too lowly of Chávez.

As for the `, Brazilian language keyboard.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I think we've had worse presidents. Also, your name conjures up images of Japan, not Brazil.

Did you read the rebuttal at the bottom of that garbage?


I guess it refers to this article:

Barack Obama's men (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_551642.html)

Jeez. That dude is a turd sandwich and a half. Cut in those triangle shapes, with the crusts removed.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I think we've had worse presidents. Also, your name conjures up images of Japan, not Brazil.

I know some Japanese. ;)

Jeez. That dude is a turd sandwich and a half. Cut in those triangle shapes, with the crusts removed.

Why so much detailing?

I've seen the Washington Times, in an ACTUAL online article, call for a coup. So, yeah, why would I not believe that there are some newspapers, albeit commanded and staffed by the insane, that would favor this kind of action?

What's more, in 1964, the US SUPPORTED a coup here. In 1973, it did the same, actively, in Chile. And again in 2004 in Venezuela. Am I to attempt to disbelieve that as well? Is it that big a stretch to notice that likely some "people" there favor this?

Where was this coup article? Which country? I'm guessing it wasn't the US that they were suggesting...

It is the opinion of the Tribune Review, yes.

Care to back it up that that is what they believe?

So the fact that this article ends up in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review means that they concur with the gist of the article?

Wrong! I guess you forgot what an opinion piece is.

Do they agree with these statements from the article:




So your rag of a newspaper in Pittsburgh published this garbage, supporting intervention into another country's democratic affairs, and obviously supports the message?

I noticed that the article is not signed. How convenient to blame it on "a Washington-based British journalist and political observer".

I notice you do not know what an op-ed is. Maybe you should brush up on journalism 101.

Here! I will help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite editorial due to the tradition of newspapers placing such materials on the page opposite the editorial page, is similar in form and content to an editorial, but represents the opinion of an individual writer, who is sometimes but not always affiliated with the publication. Though these two terms are sometimes confused, they are quite distinct.

Jeez. That dude is a turd sandwich and a half. Cut in those triangle shapes, with the crusts removed.

There is no doubt about that.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Feb2003/bybee0203.html

All discussions of coups aside, it doesn't sound like Joao Goulart was all that hot of a President, either. When one of his biggest actions is to expropriate foreign property, he's not going to be known for his respect for the rule of law or for property rights.

Wrong! I guess you forgot what an opinion piece is.

I notice you do not know what an op-ed is. Maybe you should brush up on journalism 101.

Here! I will help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial
Nevermind your condesending BS. The fact remains that Dateline D.C. is listed as a regular column of the Pittsburgh rag that you extoll. That strongly suggests that though he/she/it is anonymous, that person is being paid to write garbage for their paper on a regular basis? Also, there is no dissent written, which further suggests that the editors are okay with this persons input on a regular basis?

All discussions of coups aside, it doesn't sound like Joao Goulart was all that hot of a President, either. When one of his biggest actions is to expropriate foreign property, he's not going to be known for his respect for the rule of law or for property rights.

Expropriation - buyback of lands, for instance - happens in many countries. That's called eminent domain in the US. Are you SURE we aren't talking about the same thing?

Expropriation in Canada is the act of a public authority (such as federal, provincial, municipal governments or other bodies empowered by statute) taking property without the consent of an owner through a statutory or common law process. This process involves the payment of compensation to the owner by the authority and the owner having the right to claim additional compensation to be determined by the courts or an administrative board. Compensation is intended to make the owner whole, in light of the loss suffered. The term is the U.S. equivalent to the power of eminent domain.[1] - Wikipedia.

Is Canada lawless?

And even then, I'll take "no property rights" over "no rights BUT property" any day.

Which is a moot point because the US has no right whatsoever to support coups in other countries regardless.

Nevermind your condesending BS. The fact remains that Dateline D.C. is listed as a regular column of the Pittsburgh rag that you extoll. That strongly suggests that though he/she/it is anonymous, that person is being paid to write garbage for their paper on a regular basis? Also, there is no dissent written, which further suggests that the editors are okay with this persons input on a regular basis?

You really cannot fathom Freedom of the Press can you? Nor Freedom of Speech. I have a feeling that the Trib in no way supports a coup in foreign nations. However, the assertion made was that the Trib does in fact support it but yet, no evidence has been presented proving that assertion.

I'm still waiting in said proof.

You really cannot fathom Freedom of the Press can you? Nor Freedom of Speech. I have a feeling that the Trib in no way supports a coup in foreign nations. However, the assertion made was that the Trib does in fact support it but yet, no evidence has been presented proving that assertion.

I'm still waiting in said proof.

Question.

If a news outlet didn't support YOUR freedom of speech, would you support THEIRS?

Question.

If a news outlet didn't support YOUR freedom of speech, would you support THEIRS?

A question with a question!

Why would I object?

A question with a question!

Why would I object?

Well, because thus dictates Newton's third law of motion. ;)

And because I, quite frankly, find it paradoxical to give free speech to those that want yours taken away.

Well, because thus dictates Newton's third law of motion. ;)

And because I, quite frankly, find it paradoxical to give free speech to those that want yours taken away.

Why should we impede such speech?

Why should we impede such speech?

Oh, I'm not saying that YOU should in this case.

I just wish the guy would get a taste of his own medicine.

Heck, it could be through getting his tongue cut off in a freak accident and being unable to speak for all I care.

You really cannot fathom Freedom of the Press can you? Nor Freedom of Speech.
Yeah, "Freedom of the Press/Speech" is where right-wingers can say whatever they want with impunity and left-wingers can be tried for treason for showing dissent. :p

I have a feeling that the Trib in no way supports a coup in foreign nations. However, the assertion made was that the Trib does in fact support it but yet, no evidence has been presented proving that assertion.

I'm still waiting in said proof.
Since this "anonymous" person is writing a regular column (Dateline is listed under columnists) for the Tribune, then they are paying for this persons opinion, and as such the editors should be held accountable for what they publish. Since the editors offer no dissent on what has been written by this anonymous flake, one would presume that the editors agree in principle with what has been written by this "anonymous" dweeb?

the opinion of an individual writer, who is sometimes but not always affiliated with the publication.
In this case, the writer is EXCLUSIVELY affiliated with the Tribune Review; claims to be "British" but his writing indicates that he has never lived outside the United States (and no-one in DC knows of any "British journalist" there like this fellow); and appears, in fact, to be Richard Mellon Scaife (owner of the paper) under a very small fig leaf.

and appears, in fact, to be Richard Mellon Scaife (owner of the paper) under a very small fig leaf.

If I may, how'd you come to that conclusion?

Expropriation - buyback of lands, for instance - happens in many countries. That's called eminent domain in the US. Are you SURE we aren't talking about the same thing?

And even then, I'll take "no property rights" over "no rights BUT property" any day.

Which is a moot point because the US has no right whatsoever to support coups in other countries regardless.
There's a huge difference between seizing and nationalizing foreign property because it suits one's immediate political needs and any form of eminent domain. Eminent domain, used properly, limits property acquisitions by the government for public purposes. The owners are compensated. Expropriate is exactly the right word to use, as there was no compensation to the foreign owners of the seized property.

Again, we're looking at a bad guy, regardless of what happened afterward.

If I may, how'd you come to that conclusion?
Writers tend to have distinctive voices. When "Eureka Australis" changed to "Andaras", did any of the regulars on NSG have the slightest difficulty in recognizing him? "Dateline D.C." is the same voice, often recycling the same material, as the "American Spectator"; of course the "Spectator" may have been by a ghostwriter rather than Scaife himself, but if so "Dateline" is surely the same ghostwriter.

Again, we're looking at a bad guy, regardless of what happened afterward.

Even ASSUMING João Goulart was bad:

1- It was not the US's place to coup him out.

2- The dictatorship that followed was much, MUCH worse.

In this case, the writer is EXCLUSIVELY affiliated with the Tribune Review; claims to be "British" but his writing indicates that he has never lived outside the United States (and no-one in DC knows of any "British journalist" there like this fellow); and appears, in fact, to be Richard Mellon Scaife (owner of the paper) under a very small fig leaf.
Hmmmm......maybe you are onto something about this Richard Mellon Scaife:

O'Reilly really dislikes Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200510280011)

Bill O'Reilly doesn't like us. In case that wasn't clear from his previous comparisons of Media Matters to Mao, Castro, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nazis, O'Reilly has renewed his assault on us in recent weeks. On his radio show, he called us "100 percent dishonest" -- without offering a single example of a factual error on our part. And he devoted three consecutive television broadcasts this week to attacking Media Matters, with the help of activists funded by right-wing conspiracy theorist financier Richard Mellon Scaife -- again, all without pointing out a single factual error on our part.
More (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife#_note-0):

Scaife has a long history of supporting attacks on organizations and institutions which refuse to kowtow to right-wing interests.....

Scaife has been criticized by sections in the media for attempting to corrupt the practice of journalism and dilute it with a very specific agenda.
And he financially supports our dear friends at Newsmax!! :p

Even ASSUMING João Goulart was bad:

1- It was not the US's place to coup him out.

2- The dictatorship that followed was much, MUCH worse.

I'll give you #2.

But the more I read makes me think that this was a domestic event, rather than the US-led effort that you claim.

Goulart seemed to go out of his way to alienate the military. He also seemed unable to govern and in deteriorating conditions that's not a good thing. Additionally, the Senate called for congressional support of the coup -- I assume Congressmen are elected representatives in Brazil...

So, it does seem that with the coup, the citizens of Brazil got what they wanted -- a new leader. What they didn't realize is that you don't always want to get what you wish for. I have no doubt this coup would have happened without any assistance or support from the United States.

Hmmmm......maybe you are onto something about this Richard Mellon Scaife:


More (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife#_note-0):


And he financially supports our dear friends at Newsmax!! :p

Now is there an unbiased source outside of the Liberal Media Watchdog group called Media matters?

And the dude is a conspiracy theorist! Since when do we ever believe in conspiracy theorists rantings?

Snip.

It still had American support. In and of itself, anathema to claiming to favor democracy.

And indeed, while they didn't NEED it, there were American troops stationed nearby to do what they did in Chile should it be deemed necessary. That's still supporting, even because one is much more liable to pull crap if they know someone's watching their backs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involvement

And before any of you goes "ZOMG IT'Z WIKIPEDIAZ!!!1!1!ONE", there are several other links within it.

It still had American support. In and of itself, anathema to claiming to favor democracy.

And indeed, while they didn't NEED it, there were American troops stationed nearby to do what they did in Chile should it be deemed necessary. That's still supporting, even because one is much more liable to pull crap if they know someone's watching their backs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involvement

And before any of you goes "ZOMG IT'Z WIKIPEDIAZ!!!1!1!ONE", there are several other links within it.

That really doesn't seem like a significant degree of involvement. I mean, the historical context section doesn't even mention the US involvement, rather, domestic conditions seem to have been what instituted the coup.

That really doesn't seem like a significant degree of involvement. I mean, the historical context section doesn't even mention the US involvement, rather, domestic conditions seem to have been what instituted the coup.

ANY degree of involvement is significant. That the US didn't do what it did to Chile nine years later does not make it ok.

It still had American support. In and of itself, anathema to claiming to favor democracy.

And indeed, while they didn't NEED it, there were American troops stationed nearby to do what they did in Chile should it be deemed necessary. That's still supporting, even because one is much more liable to pull crap if they know someone's watching their backs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_Involvement

And before any of you goes "ZOMG IT'Z WIKIPEDIAZ!!!1!1!ONE", there are several other links within it.
You can rationalize all you want and live with a chip on your shoulder. Fact is the coup would have happened anyway -- with or without support from the U.S.

What a smart guy like you should be doing is trying to figure out what made(makes?) the Brazilian government so unstable that a few bad calls by a bad President can cause the Army to revolt. If you look at an example to the north, you can find a nation that has had orderly transfers of power for over two hundred and thiry years, despite the usual assortment of boneheads that have occupied the office of the President.

You can rationalize all you want and live with a chip on your shoulder. Fact is the coup would have happened anyway -- with or without support from the U.S.

What a smart guy like you should be doing is trying to figure out what made(makes?) the Brazilian government so unstable that a few bad calls by a bad President can cause the Army to revolt. If you look at an example to the north, you can find a nation that has had orderly transfers of power for over two hundred and thiry years, despite the usual assortment of boneheads that have occupied the office of the President.

It could have happened in a harder way for the guys that pulled that crap. It could have happened without US endorsement, which would make it harder to sustain. And even IF it would have happened anyways, it was never the US's place to throw its support around like that. Especially because yours is a nation that claims to favor, and here's the kicker, democracy.

And your point would be far stronger if there weren't democracies the US helped overthrow and in which the US subsequently supported the dictatorship all over Latin America. Pinochet had ACTIVE backup, for one instance.

Furthermore, that some newspapers support a RE-RUN of THAT, in the 2000's no less, goes to show what kind of hypocrites some people may be about defending democracy.

Ask yourself this: How would your reaction be if a newspaper in a fellow democracy suggested assassinating Bush and Cheney?

It could have happened in a harder way for the guys that pulled that crap. It could have happened without US endorsement, which would make it harder to sustain. And even IF it would have happened anyways, it was never the US's place to throw its support around like that. Especially because yours is a nation that claims to favor, and here's the kicker, democracy.

And your point would be far stronger if there weren't democracies the US helped overthrow and in which the US subsequently supported the dictatorship all over Latin America. Pinochet had ACTIVE backup, for one instance.

Furthermore, that some newspapers support a RE-RUN of THAT, in the 2000's no less, goes to show what kind of hypocrites some people may be about defending democracy.

Ask yourself this: How would your reaction be if a newspaper in a fellow democracy suggested assassinating Bush and Cheney?

you know? I was just reading the wikipedia article when I stumbled across the section entitled, Historical Context:

José Guilherme Merquior, a Brazilian diplomat and sociologist, defined the causes of the 1964 coup as "governmental instability, disintegration of the party system, virtual paralysis of the legislative branch, erroneous attitudes by president Goulart (if not none at all) towards presidential succession; the threat represented by a poorly-planned agrarian reform; military restlessness towards government tolerance to insubordination; and a growing radicalism, by both left and right wings (...) all compounded by high inflation and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution.[31]

According to Celso Castro of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, the perception of a communist threat in Brazil became increasingly tangible until it reached its climax with the 1935 Revolt. He cites events contributing to a growing anti-communism in the armed forces, such as: the Russian Revolution of 1917, the foundation of a communist party in Brazil (1922), the conversion to communism of "tenentista" leader Luís Carlos Prestes (1930), and his departure to the Soviet Union; the appearance (March of 1935) of the Aliança Nacional Libertadora, dominated by communists, the sergeants' revolt (1963), the sailors' revolt, Jânio Quadros giving a medal to Che Guevara, Goulart's trip to China, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union by Goulart. These were perceived by the military as being threats to the status quo. [32] Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN), the business elite, large land owners, the media and the Catholic church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Historical_context

As to our involvement:

Operation Brother Sam
Declassified transcripts of communications between Lincoln Gordon and the US government show that, predicting an all-out civil war, Johnson authorized logistical materials to be in place to support the coup-side of the rebellion. These included ammunition, motor oil, gasoline, aviation gasoline and other materials to help in a potential civil war in US Navy tankers sailing from Aruba. About 110 tons of ammunition and CS gas were made ready in New Jersey for a potential airlift to Viracopos Airport in Campinas. Potential support was also made available in the form of an "aircraft carrier (USS Forrestal) and two guided missile destroyers (expected arrive in area by April 10), (and) four destroyers", which sailed to Brazil under the guise of a military exercise.[29]


CIA involvement
In the telegraphs, Gordon also acknowledges US involvement in "covert support for pro-democracy street rallies…and encouragement [of] democratic and anti-communist sentiment in Congress, armed forces, friendly labor and student groups, church, and business" and that he "may be requesting modest supplementary funds for other covert action programs in the near future.".[30] The actual operational files of the CIA remain classified, preventing historians from accurately gauging the CIA's direct involvement in the coup.[28]

you know? I was just reading the wikipedia article when I stumbled across the section entitled, Historical Context:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Historical_context

As to our involvement:

Unless that involvement was, you know, ZERO, which it wasn't, the US was still out of line back then. That's my point.

Now is there an unbiased source outside of the Liberal Media Watchdog group called Media matters?

And the dude is a conspiracy theorist! Since when do we ever believe in conspiracy theorists rantings?
So, you are admitting that Richard Mellon Scaife is a "conspiracy theorist", who just happens to own the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, that just happened to print an opinion by a regular "anonymous" columnist that supported the overthrow of a democratic government in Brazil?

Unless that involvement was, you know, ZERO, which it wasn't, the US was still out of line back then. That's my point.

The actual operational files of the CIA remain classified, preventing historians from accurately gauging the CIA's direct involvement in the coup

Maybe you and I should pressure the US government to declassify those files. I mean...the coup was what? Fourty-four years ago? Don't ya think its time we see those files?

Maybe you and I should pressure the US government to declassify those files. I mean...the coup was what? Fourty-four years ago? Don't ya think its time we see those files?

Shrugs. YOU AND I alone can do squat.

However, that the CIA classified it does get pretty suspicious.

And true, we should get to see these files, as well as the files for all of Latin America.

So, you are admitting that Richard Mellon Scaife is a "conspiracy theorist", who just happens to own the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, that just happened to print an opinion by a regular "anonymous" columnist that supported the overthrow of a democratic government in Brazil?

I'm still waiting on proof that the Trib supports a coup in Brazil. If it did, don't you think that there would be major articles written in it instead of just of ONE opinion piece?

On a very interesting note, Scaife's ex-wife supports Barack Obama and apparently he is cosing up to the Clintons:

In the fall of 2007, however, Ruddy published a positive interview with former President Clinton on Newsmax.com, followed by a positive cover story in the magazine. The New York Times noted with reference to the event that politics had made "strange bedfellows".[14] Newsweek reported that Ruddy praised Clinton for his Foundation's global work, and explained that the interview, as well as a private lunch he and Scaife had had with Clinton (which Ruddy says was orchestrated by Ed Koch), were due to the shared view of himself and Scaife that Clinton was doing important work representing the U.S. globally while America was the target of criticism. He also said that he and Scaife had never suggested Clinton was involved in Foster's death, nor had they spread allegations about Bill Clinton's sex scandals, although their work may have encouraged others.[15] It has been suggested that Scaife is motivated by a desire to improve his public image in regard to his divorce, or even that he may be motivated by a desire to oppose his ex-wife's support for Barrack Obama. [16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

Interesting indeed.

Shrugs. YOU AND I alone can do squat.

However, that the CIA classified it does get pretty suspicious.

And true, we should get to see these files, as well as the files for all of Latin America.

I completely agree with you.

I completely agree with you.

I agree with me too. :p

Ask yourself this: How would your reaction be if a newspaper in a fellow democracy suggested assassinating Bush and Cheney?

I'm sure columnists in some other democracies have.

Some columnists in the US have (it's considered a joke, and therefore not a threat, on Air America).

I'm sure columnists in some other democracies have.

Some columnists in the US have (it's considered a joke, and therefore not a threat, on Air America).

Then you're free to produce evidence.

Then you're free to produce evidence.

Iranian president issues veiled threat to Bush, official news agency reports Wed Sep 06 2006 11:30:01 ET

Iran's official news agency reported Wednesday what appeared to be a veiled threat from hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.

During the same speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad reiterated a proposal from last month to debate Bush, suggesting on Wednesday that the United Nations would be the ideal venue, his official web site reported.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said Ahmadinejad had warned in a speech that anyone who refused to accept an invitation would suffer a bad fate. It said the statement was a reference to Bush's rejection of an invitation by Ahmadinejad for a televised debate.

The official news agency did not provide any exact quote from Ahmadinejad containing those words, but reported that he said them. It quoted Ahmadinejad directly as saying: "This is not a threat by me. This is a threat by the entire universe. The universal trend is against suppression."

Iranian president issues veiled threat to Bush, official news agency reports Wed Sep 06 2006 11:30:01 ET

Iran's official news agency reported Wednesday what appeared to be a veiled threat from hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.

During the same speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad reiterated a proposal from last month to debate Bush, suggesting on Wednesday that the United Nations would be the ideal venue, his official web site reported.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said Ahmadinejad had warned in a speech that anyone who refused to accept an invitation would suffer a bad fate. It said the statement was a reference to Bush's rejection of an invitation by Ahmadinejad for a televised debate.

The official news agency did not provide any exact quote from Ahmadinejad containing those words, but reported that he said them. It quoted Ahmadinejad directly as saying: "This is not a threat by me. This is a threat by the entire universe. The universal trend is against suppression."

I ask you to provide evidence by a newspaper in a democracy and you provide evidence by a nutcase in a dictatorship?

REALLY?

I ask you to provide evidence by a newspaper in a democracy and you provide evidence by a nutcase in a dictatorship?

REALLY?

Iran claims it's a democracy.

After all, Ahmadinejad was elected.

Iran claims it's a democracy.

After all, Ahmadinejad was elected.

Even if I were to concede that, which would be cynical in the extreme, since Iran is OBVIOUSLY not a democracy, Ahmadinejad was not calling for an assassination (It's even arguable whether or not that was a threat), nor was he a columnist.

So, yeah.

Even if I were to concede that, which would be cynical in the extreme, since Iran is OBVIOUSLY not a democracy, Ahmadinejad was not calling for an assassination (It's even arguable whether or not that was a threat), nor was he a columnist.

So, yeah.

Sure, like he wasn't calling for Israel to be wiped out, or for every Jew in the world to be annihilated. Yeah.

It's called euphemism. Ahmadinejad likes to use them so he can deny everything.

It's like calling something "The Final Solution".

Sure, like he wasn't calling for Israel to be wiped out, or for every Jew in the world to be annihilated. Yeah.

It's called euphemism. Ahmadinejad likes to use them so he can deny everything.

It's like calling something "The Final Solution".

Uh-huh.

And yet Iran remains not a democracy, these things HAD diplomatic repercussions, and the fact that they had only goes to prove my point that Brazil would have every right to be annoyed over a newspaper calling for (another) US-supported coup here.

So, again, what exactly is your point?

Uh-huh.

And yet Iran remains not a democracy, these things HAD diplomatic repercussions, and the fact that they had only goes to prove my point that Brazil would have every right to be annoyed over a newspaper calling for (another) US-supported coup here.

So, again, what exactly is your point?

How is Iran not a democracy?

How is Iran not a democracy?

For starters, most of the actual power is held by the unelected clerics.

And, again, it HAD repercussions. Will you discuss the actual matter at hand or will you nitpick some more?

For starters, most of the actual power is held by the unelected clerics.

And, again, it HAD repercussions. Will you discuss the actual matter at hand or will you nitpick some more?

Ok. Randi Rhodes, on Air America, is frequently threatening or calling for the assassination of Bush.

The first time was in 2004.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In “Godfather II,” Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

Ok. Randi Rhodes, on Air America, is frequently threatening or calling for the assassination of Bush.

The first time was in 2004.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In “Godfather II,” Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

And you're trying to use as a point the fact that America didn't get in an international incident with ITSELF?

I keep on questioning how you'd react if a NEWSPAPER in a DEMOCRACY were to call for forcibly tampering with the American system and you keep on dodging it with flimsy pseudo-examples.

Why?

It could have happened in a harder way for the guys that pulled that crap. It could have happened without US endorsement, which would make it harder to sustain. And even IF it would have happened anyways, it was never the US's place to throw its support around like that. Especially because yours is a nation that claims to favor, and here's the kicker, democracy.

And your point would be far stronger if there weren't democracies the US helped overthrow and in which the US subsequently supported the dictatorship all over Latin America. Pinochet had ACTIVE backup, for one instance.

So carry the chip; it's no matter to me.

Furthermore, that some newspapers support a RE-RUN of THAT, in the 2000's no less, goes to show what kind of hypocrites some people may be about defending democracy.

In the U.S., newspapers are not the government. I care very little what a newspaper has to say in the editorial section -- except when it comes time to buy the rag. They certainly don't speak for me.

Ask yourself this: How would your reaction be if a newspaper in a fellow democracy suggested assassinating Bush and Cheney?
Like the BBC did with their "documentary" on the assassination of Bush? In a country with a stable government, you can just sit back and call them the boneheads that they are without worrying that the Army is going to march to the capitol and arrest the government.

So carry the chip; it's no matter to me.

In the U.S., newspapers are not the government. I care very little what a newspaper has to say in the editorial section -- except when it comes time to buy the rag. They certainly don't speak for me.

Like the BBC did with their "documentary" on the assassination of Bush? In a country with a stable government, you can just sit back and call them the boneheads that they are without worrying that the Army is going to march to the capitol and arrest the government.

It's not a "chip". It's the statement that the US had no right to interfere, in any way, shape or form.

And did the documentary CALL for the assassination?

And you're trying to use as a point the fact that America didn't get in an international incident with ITSELF?

I keep on questioning how you'd react if a NEWSPAPER in a DEMOCRACY were to call for forcibly tampering with the American system and you keep on dodging it with flimsy pseudo-examples.

Why?
Baloney. You asked for evidence that a newspaper in a democracy called for the assassination of the President. You were provided with it. Now, you retreat to a previous question and evade the issue at hand. Which debate ***tactic*** is that? ***Running out of ideas***?

The point is that we have a government that is stable enough to withstand this kind of nonsense. The fact that we survive our radio personalities calling for this assassination says even more in favor of our stability.

It's not a "chip". It's the statement that the US had no right to interfere, in any way, shape or form.

And did the documentary CALL for the assassination?
No, but your question was "What if...?" and that's about the closest thing I could find. I don't read foreign papers, so I don't much care what they call for.

And did the documentary CALL for the assassination?
No, they were very coy about it, not coming right out and saying it would be a "good thing"; but certainly the suggestion was there.
Similarly, as Corneliu keeps pointing out, the Tribune Review was very coy about what exactly the CIA should have done about Lula.

In the U.S., newspapers are not the government. I care very little what a newspaper has to say in the editorial section -- except when it comes time to buy the rag. They certainly don't speak for me.



Especially second tier newspapers that are regularly suffering huge losses in readership. The Tribune-Review is a second tier newspaper in a city, and despite the lower readership than the Post-Gazette, the Tribune-Review is losing more people each year than the Post-Gazette.

Why one earth would anyone care what the Tribune-Review has to say?

Like the BBC did with their "documentary" on the assassination of Bush? In a country with a stable government, you can just sit back and call them the boneheads that they are without worrying that the Army is going to march to the capitol and arrest the government.

Let us not forget the Guardian trying to get its readers to write letters to Ohio voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry.

No, they were very coy about it, not coming right out and saying it would be a "good thing"; but certainly the suggestion was there.
Similarly, as Corneliu keeps pointing out, the Tribune Review was very coy about what exactly the CIA should have done about Lula.

I don't think the assassination of Bush and/or Cheney would be a good thing, because it would empower Republicans.

Baloney. You asked for evidence that a newspaper in a democracy called for the assassination of the President. You were provided with it. Now, you retreat to a previous question and evade the issue at hand. Which debate ***tactic*** is that? ***Running out of ideas***?

The point is that we have a government that is stable enough to withstand this kind of nonsense. The fact that we survive our radio personalities calling for this assassination says even more in favor of our stability.

I'll admit to yours being a stylish way to mock me.

1- So is Brazil's government. Which doesn't keep me from being irked at a newspaper that calls for MY rights to be eschewed.

2- The Pittsburgh Rag was a LOT more direct in its calls.

And you're trying to use as a point the fact that America didn't get in an international incident with ITSELF?

I keep on questioning how you'd react if a NEWSPAPER in a DEMOCRACY were to call for forcibly tampering with the American system and you keep on dodging it with flimsy pseudo-examples.

Why?

I wouldn't care - it's free speech, lol.

Other people do it - in our country and out.

Especially second tier newspapers that are regularly suffering huge losses in readership. The Tribune-Review is a second tier newspaper in a city, and despite the lower readership than the Post-Gazette, the Tribune-Review is losing more people each year than the Post-Gazette.

Why one earth would anyone care what the Tribune-Review has to say?

Nobody. That's the point. It sells less papers than the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

I wouldn't care - it's free speech, lol.

Other people do it - in our country and out.

In that case you're coherent, IF a lot more passive than I am.

I don't know, I just get pretty annoyed at a newspaper calling for my rights - as a Brazilian - to be trampled like that.

Plus, they call for my free speech to be stymied; What's wrong with me calling for theirs to suffer the same fate?

Let us not forget the Guardian trying to get its readers to write letters to Ohio voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry.
And how does "Guardian trying to get its readers to write letters to Ohio voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry" = "How did this happen without the United States noticing and doing something to stop a Marxist takeover?"

They are not equal, in any way shape or form.

In that case you're coherent, IF a lot more passive than I am.

I don't know, I just get pretty annoyed at a newspaper calling for my rights - as a Brazilian - to be trampled like that.

Plus, they call for my free speech to be stymied; What's wrong with me calling for theirs to suffer the same fate?

I think that people all over the world, newspaper or not, express their opinions. Since newspapers in the US aren't controlled by the US government, they're free to say whatever crosses their minds.

Pat Robertson can suggest we assassinate Chavez - it doesn't mean the government told him to say it or will act on it.

You can be pissed - just don't watch the 700 Club or send Robertson your money.

Other people in other countries can talk all they want - even on the Internet.

I don't care - it's free speech. You can tune into al-Jazeera and hear from various commentators how every American is going to hell, or going to die in the end after the struggle, etc. It's as stupid as Pat Robertson, but it's free speech.

I'm all for free speech - the freer the better.

But going around saying that newspapers and news organizations don't advocate the assassination of the US President - that happens every day.

Just not always in your language.

Nobody. That's the point. It sells less papers than the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

Quite. It has half as many readers as the Post-Gazette, and people are fleeing their readership at a rate two times higher than they are the Post-Gazette. This is not a well written paper, and it is not being successful.

And how does "Guardian trying to get its readers to write letters to Ohio voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry" = "How did this happen without the United States noticing and doing something to stop a Marxist takeover?"

They are not equal, in any way shape or form.

Interfering in the elections of another country, perhaps?

Interfering in the elections of another country, perhaps?
How is it (the request to vote for Kerry) interfering in another country's election? It isn't.

If the Toronto Star stated that Bush should be assassinated then you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Nobody. That's the point. It sells less papers than the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
If "nobody" cares what the Tribune-Review has to say, then why do you so vehemently defend them by making acidic comments to Heikoku?

Do you know anything about the Pittsburgh Tribune Review? No you don't. I do though for I used to read it ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!!!

*sighs*

You really are a jackass you know that? Please tell me how you can assert that a paper supported a coup or that the Brazilian elections should have been tampered with? You have to be a complete jackass if you believe this sort of shit.
Obviously somebody in Brazil cares?

Originally, Corneliu was denying that the Tribune Review would ever write such a thing, because he reads it all the time and he knows it is a "centrist" newspaper unlike that radical-lefty-rag the Post-Gazette. I first chimed in just to say that I always found the Post-Gazette right-of-center, and the Tribune-Review right-of-Attila-the-Hun, or whatever it was I said before we were asked to take it to a new thread.

I always found the Post-Gazette right-of-center, and the Tribune-Review right-of-Attila-the-Hun

:D

Originally, Corneliu was denying that the Tribune Review would ever write such a thing, because he reads it all the time and he knows it is a "centrist" newspaper unlike that radical-lefty-rag the Post-Gazette. I first chimed in just to say that I always found the Post-Gazette right-of-center, and the Tribune-Review right-of-Attila-the-Hun, or whatever it was I said before we were asked to take it to a new thread.

Uh...I don't think Attila could be defined as "left" or "right" as the terms are defined today.

In that case you're coherent, IF a lot more passive than I am.

I don't know, I just get pretty annoyed at a newspaper calling for my rights - as a Brazilian - to be trampled like that.

Plus, they call for my free speech to be stymied; What's wrong with me calling for theirs to suffer the same fate?

It's childish.

So, how many of you saying that this paper has the right to call for a coup in Brazil and he should just get over it were filled with a rightous anger when you heard about that Absolut add that showed Mexico still in control of its former territories?


Mm-hm. I thought so.

Uh...I don't think Attila could be defined as "left" or "right" as the terms are defined today.

Hmmm... it's true that some of Attila's policies, such as his health-care reform proposals, seemed "liberal", and muddle the attempt to classify him, but on the particular issues we are debating here, such as willingness to intervene in the affairs of other countries, and military buildup, and so on, he was fairly "conservative".

So, how many of you saying that this paper has the right to call for a coup in Brazil and he should just get over it were filled with a rightous anger when you heard about that Absolut add that showed Mexico still in control of its former territories?


Mm-hm. I thought so.

Wooooow... Nice!

It's childish.

Newton's Third Law of Motion...

Newton's Third Law of Motion...

...has absolutely nothing to do with interpersonal relations.

Any other sentences you want me to finish for you? ;)

And how does "Guardian trying to get its readers to write letters to Ohio voters in 2004 to vote for Kerry" = "How did this happen without the United States noticing and doing something to stop a Marxist takeover?"

They are not equal, in any way shape or form.

How would you like it if we in America wrote letters to people in canada telling them to vote for the Conservative Party?

It is still interfering in another nation's election.

...has absolutely nothing to do with interpersonal relations.

Any other sentences you want me to finish for you? ;)

There IS karma too... ;)

If "nobody" cares what the Tribune-Review has to say, then why do you so vehemently defend them by making acidic comments to Heikoku?

Its called free speech CH. Maybe you should look it up sometime.

How would you like it if we in America wrote letters to people in canada telling them to vote for the Conservative Party?

It is still interfering in another nation's election.

No.
Offering people advice about how they should vote, advice which you can take or leave, is not at all the same as "interfering" with the election.

There IS karma too... ;)

Damn, I wasn't expecting you to take me up on it. :(

How would you like it if we in America wrote letters to people in canada telling them to vote for the Conservative Party?

It is still interfering in another nation's election.

Okay, can anyone name the difference between a letter-writing campaign and a coup d'etat?

Fucking right, man. Viva Salvador Allende!

What the fuck???

Why!?

Okay, can anyone name the difference between a letter-writing campaign and a coup d'etat?

A coup d'etat signifies action to overthrow an elected government by the military while a letter writing campaign tries to persuade voters to vote for a candidate.

Now care to tell me why you are hot and bothered by one stupid editorial that has zero basis in reality?

There IS karma too... ;)

...which also is not applicable if the Op-Ed writer was in the state of Moksha.
:D

What the fuck???

Why!?

***7th Flush***

Because he had been lawfully elected and the US had no right to interfere in Chile.

Because he was a victim of a violation of sovereignty.

Because he was overthrown in a bloody, illegal coup, followed by a terrible dictatorship.

Because he was supposed to be the Chilean leader back then.

Because the government that overthrew him was corrupt.

Because so was the government that HELPED in the coup.

Because if you care as much about sovereignty as you claimed you did in the Absolut thread, you should care about Chile's as well.

Your move, sir?

So, how many of you saying that this paper has the right to call for a coup in Brazil and he should just get over it were filled with a rightous anger when you heard about that Absolut add that showed Mexico still in control of its former territories?


Mm-hm. I thought so.
Never saw the ad, I'm a bourbon drinker, anyway. But the difference is obviously too subtle for you. In the first case, someone is protecting the right to freedom of the press. In the second case, someone(Absolut) is suffering the consequences of exercising the right to publish as it sees fit.

Same thing with the Dixie Chicks a while back. They exercised their right to say something. It was stupid and they felt the consequences from saying it.

Do we know if the newspaper in question has had a decrease in circulation since the pro-coup editorial?

***7th Flush***

Because he had been lawfully elected and the US had no right to interfere in Chile.

Because he was a victim of a violation of sovereignty.

Because he was overthrown in a bloody, illegal coup, followed by a terrible dictatorship.

Because he was supposed to be the Chilean leader back then.

Because the government that overthrew him was corrupt.

Because so was the government that HELPED in the coup.

Because if you care as much about sovereignty as you claimed you did in the Absolut thread, you should care about Chile's as well.

Your move, sir?

I think he was questioning the poster's admiration of Allende, rather than the coup.

***7th Flush***

Because he had been lawfully elected and the US had no right to interfere in Chile.

Because he was a victim of a violation of sovereignty.

Because he was overthrown in a bloody, illegal coup, followed by a terrible dictatorship.

Because he was supposed to be the Chilean leader back then.

Because the government that overthrew him was corrupt.

Because so was the government that HELPED in the coup.

Because if you care as much about sovereignty as you claimed you did in the Absolut thread, you should care about Chile's as well.

Your move, sir?

That doesn't make him worth Viva'ing. He still sucked even if he was coup'ed out.

Snip.

Maybe, maybe not. However, TAI expressed open admiration of Pinochet before, and openly stated that the coup was right, and so on. So, my 7th Flush is more against THAT than pro-Viva. :p

Maybe, maybe not. However, TAI expressed open admiration of Pinochet before, and openly stated that the coup was right, and so on. So, my 7th Flush is more against THAT than pro-Viva. :p

He did?

I think he was questioning the poster's admiration of Allende, rather than the coup.
This. Whether Pinochet was good or bad for Chile is another debate. Whether someone like Allende is worth "vivaing", however, is what I was critisizing that poster on.
That doesn't make him worth Viva'ing. He still sucked even if he was coup'ed out.
Right. And those that hate Pinochet should also dislike Allende for it was his terrible marxist rule that caused his country to starve due to his socialistic economic policies, which lead to the climate where someone like Pinochet felt they needed to take over.
He did?
Yes indeed. While a dictatorship is always a horrible system, a right wing dictatorship, that is, outlawing political freedom but freedom of market is always better system than a left wing dictatorship, which not only outlaws economic but also political freedom. Thus, as right wing dictatorships have much less governmental control over society, they are more likely to lead to free societies. Which, Pinochet's right wing dictatorship did, as I'd like to point out.

Allende's society was not quite free at all, and as marxism is slavery, any opposition to marxism can be looked upon as an abolitionist movement.


He is criticized for his government's mass nationalization of private industry, alleged friendliness with more militant groups such as the Movement of the Revolutionary Left, and the supply shortages and hyperinflation that occurred during the latter years of his presidency; all these had combined to cause a strong polarization in the country and the committed opposition of the Christian Democratic Party at the time of the coup. He is also accused of having had an autocratic style, attempting to circumvent the Congress and the courts, and having a hostile attitude toward critical media.

According to his opponents, Allende's own refusal to obey and/or enforce more than 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legistlative rulings (as detailed in the Resolution of August 22, 1973 was a sign of dictatorial style in defiance of Chile's democratic government institutions.

Also, to his corruption and the fears that he was bringing leftist Chile further in line with the Soviet sphere of influence, which should not be and was not tolerated.

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians.”[29]

According to Christopher Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB’s view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure. [29]"

While Allende and Castro and many others like him are viewed as near Gods by international Leftists, they leave behind them hyperinflation, ruined economies and failed states.

In comparison, to Pinochet, who is hated internationally by leftists, he left behind a free democracy, a free market society, the most stable nation in Latin-America, an economic powerhouse and actually stepped down after being voted out of his political rule.

Yes indeed. While a dictatorship is always a horrible system, a right wing dictatorship, that is, outlawing political freedom but freedom of market is always better system than a left wing dictatorship, which not only outlaws economic but also political freedom. Thus, as right wing dictatorships have much less governmental control over society, they are more likely to lead to free societies. Which, Pinochet's right wing dictatorship did, as I'd like to point out.

Are you a fan of Jeane Kirkpatrick? ;)

In comparison, to Pinochet, who is hated internationally by leftists, he left behind a free democracy, a free market society, the most stable nation in Latin-America, an economic powerhouse and actually stepped down after being voted out of his political rule.

And a trail of how many dead people again?

Either raise them or shut up!

And regarding the idiotic statement that Allende is to blame for Pinochet, do you blame rape victims for not dressing conservatively as well?

Are you a fan of Jeane Kirkpatrick? ;)
Very much so and I truley admire that you picked up on that. :)

Very much so and I truley admire that you picked up on that. :)

I may not agree with your assessment of Pinochet, but I do respect that you're not shy about admitting it, and you don't cop out or try to apologize for it. (I do agree with you on Allende, though.)

I'm not going to debate you if you don't debate all of the information I provided in my extensive post which totally destroyed your arguement, and instead just make little drive by jabs that show that you obviously couldn't defend against everything else I said.

And...
So now I will not shut up...but here's an idea, instead of flaming me....!HUH! Debate my post....!:confused::confused:

I may not agree with your assessment of Pinochet, but I do respect that you're not shy about admitting it, and you don't cop out or try to apologize for it. (I do agree with you on Allende, though.)
Thanks. :) It's good to hear that every once and a while. Actually today in philosophy class we just covered communist ideology and anti-communism, and naturally I wasn't shy about giving my opinion....so, I already had a bit of a warm up today. :p

And regarding the idiotic statement that Allende is to blame for Pinochet, do you blame rape victims for not dressing conservatively as well?

Not an entirely accurate analogy, IMO.

It's more akin to saying the Treaty of Versailles is to blame for Hitler.

(Of course, I'll leave the question "Is Allende to blame for Pinochet?" to you two to work out.)

Thanks. :) It's good to hear that every once and a while. Actually today in philosophy class we just covered communist ideology and anti-communism, and naturally I wasn't shy about giving my opinion....so, I already had a bit of a warm up today. :p

Do you have MSN? If so, feel free to TG me.

And regarding the idiotic statement that Allende is to blame for Pinochet, do you blame rape victims for not dressing conservatively as well?
Still waiting for you to get to the rest of my post...but since you're giving me such easy ones....I'll take 'em. ;)

We always look towards the economic/social/political climate that leads to periods of extremism. Do we not hold alot of the blame for Hitler's rise to power on the terrible Treaty of Versailles?

Please. Give me another. It's almost too easy. :p

And before you go and say "omg you said Hitler=Pinochet!" No, I didn't. I was simply showing how we as judges view the climate the leads to a period of extremism, and much of the blame falls there too.

There difference is that Hitler led his country into ruins, poverty, war and destruction and dictatorship, while Pinochet led his to eventual freedom, stability, democracy, economic freedom and freedom from Marxists.

I'm not going to debate you if you don't debate all of the information I provided in my extensive post which totally destroyed your arguement, and instead just make little drive by jabs that show that you obviously couldn't defend against everything else I said.


So now I will not shut up...but here's an idea, instead of flaming me....!HUH! Debate my post....!:confused::confused:

You don't need to debate me.

Debate the fact that Chile is a sovereign nation, debate the fact that supporting the coup was a violation of its sovereignty, debate the fact that Pinochet caused thousands of deaths, debate the fact that right wing and left wing dictatorships are one and the same, and debate the fact that you can't be pro-democracy and support couping out democratically elected leaders.

However, you can't debate these facts either, because they are that, facts.

So you're left debating me. Me and the thousands of victims of the monster you support so much.

We always look towards the economic/social/political climate that leads to periods of extremism. Do we not hold alot of the blame for Hitler's rise to power on the terrible Treaty of Versailles?

The US never helped Hitler get in power, nor did it burn the Reichstag to provide him with an excuse. Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles was an EXTERNAL force. Not one freely elected by the people of Germany.

(Not that Pinochet is that different from Hitler anyways).

The US never helped Hitler get in power

Not entirely accurate. See Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

[/nitpick]

Not entirely accurate. See Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

[/nitpick]

With a coup d'etat?

With a coup d'etat?

No.

No.

Thought as much.

Why is a coup so much easier to accomplish in the lower Americas than an impeachment, or even waiting out the bad guy until new elections?

On the face of it, there must be a real contempt for the rule of law, but I'm sure there's more to it.

We've all had the same dissatisfaction with government, but no one mobilizes the army to overthrow it.

Why is a coup so much easier to accomplish in the lower Americas than an impeachment, or even waiting out the bad guy until new elections?

On the face of it, there must be a real contempt for the rule of law, but I'm sure there's more to it.

We've all had the same dissatisfaction with government, but no one mobilizes the army to overthrow it.

1- The last president HERE that didn't survive corruption charges and with which everyone was fed up GOT impeached. We evolved from the '60s up to now.

2- You can call our governments unstable all you like, it won't change the fact that it was wrong for the US to give whatever support it gave for the coups.

While Allende and Castro and many others like him are viewed as near Gods by international Leftists, they leave behind them hyperinflation, ruined economies and failed states.

I'm going to agree with this statement.

In comparison, to Pinochet, who is hated internationally by leftists, he left behind the most stable nation in Latin-America,

Last year's protests in Santiago seems to contradict that statement, although.

Last year's protests in Santiago seems to contradict that statement, although.

Plus TAI seems intent on ignoring the long trail of blood left by the monster on his wake.

Plus TAI seems intent on ignoring the long trail of blood left by the monster on his wake.

That I took for granted.

1- The last president HERE that didn't survive corruption charges and with which everyone was fed up GOT impeached. We evolved from the '60s up to now.

2- You can call our governments unstable all you like, it won't change the fact that it was wrong for the US to give whatever support it gave for the coups.

In retrospect it is definitely regretable many people died, and perhaps it was unnecessary . From the safety of your life now it may be easy for you to pass judgment on long ago events. But you have to understnad the judgment call was not as easy to make back in the day at the height of the Cold War. Nobody knew what was going to happen, whether Allende was a truly good leader or not. You never know with Marxists. Sure Pinochet wasnt a boy scout. But the pressures and concerns of the time period caused the US to do what it did. So the US took the dangerous risk against Allende, and history turned out the way it did and you can't really anachronistically impose your value judgments and think you've contributed to shedding light on the situation.

Here is an example - I lived in Nationalist China (Taiwan) in the 70s and 80s back when we were constantly preparing for war with communist China. There is absolutely no doubt that if a free election had been held in 1949, Mao Tse-tung would have been elected supreme leader of China. He had the allegiance of millions of peasants, and Chiang Kai Shek regime was definitely corrupt, like Pinochet's. Yet Mao's regime would not have turned out well. Marxist leaders like Allende were viewed through that prism of Cold War understanding, not modern day understanding - sure Allende, like Mao, had significant popular support, - but people feared what his regime could transform into. Would it transform into another China? So the US pulled the trigger. Hope you understand more now how the politics of such things works. Whether the US supporting Chile or Taiwan or any other Cold War hotbed like South Korea, it was NEVER a straightforward decision, neither side is completely right and wrong, that is just how the Cold War was. Now that the USSR has fallen, we modern people can detach ourselves from the old hatreds and passions, and understand the fact neither side is blameless nor guilty, let us just move on and remember the victims of both sides, and simply stop assigning absolute moral judgments like you are doing.

Plus TAI seems intent on ignoring the long trail of blood left by the monster on his wake.
The (or his) ends justifies the means, apparently. I'd like to know how TAI would react if someone successfully pulled off a communist revolution in America, on the grounds that they feel capitalism is slavery. By his logic, it would be completely justified. Who needs democracy when you're right anyway?

The (or his) ends justifies the means, apparently. I'd like to know how TAI would react if someone successfully pulled off a communist revolution in America, on the grounds that they feel capitalism is slavery. By his logic, it would be completely justified. Who needs democracy when you're right anyway?

You're not expecting coherency from him, are you?

1- The last president HERE that didn't survive corruption charges and with which everyone was fed up GOT impeached. We evolved from the '60s up to now.

2- You can call our governments unstable all you like, it won't change the fact that it was wrong for the US to give whatever support it gave for the coups.

Is your animosity reserved just for the United States, or has everyone since the Portuguese wronged the sovereign nation of Brazil?

And who was to blame for the other periods of dictatorship that afflicted Brazil? I just don't think that the U.S. cared much about y'all in the thirties...

Is your animosity reserved just for the United States, or has everyone since the Portuguese wronged the sovereign nation of Brazil?

And who was to blame for the other periods of dictatorship that afflicted Brazil? I just don't think that the U.S. cared much about y'all in the thirties...

1- You seem to be misconstruing my statement of a fact that what the US did at a given point in time, specifically 1960-80, was wrong as a statement of animosity towards the country.

If you said Stalin was bad, would you be insulting Russia? I'm questioning its actions back then.

Following up on the Stalin comparison, it's like I'm stating that the Gulags were a bad idea and instead of discussing why or why not you're stating that I have a chip on my shoulder with Russia, animosity towards it and so on.

2- Who specifically? Getúlio Vargas. I know the history of my own country. And yet, the fact remains that we are not talking about the thirties, are we?

1- You seem to be misconstruing my statement of a fact that what the US did at a given point in time, specifically 1960-80, was wrong as a statement of animosity towards the country.

If you said Stalin was bad, would you be insulting Russia? I'm questioning its actions back then.

Following up on the Stalin comparison, it's like I'm stating that the Gulags were a bad idea and instead of discussing why or why not you're stating that I have a chip on my shoulder with Russia, animosity towards it and so on.

2- Who specifically? Getúlio Vargas. I know the history of my own country. And yet, the fact remains that we are not talking about the thirties, are we?
Okay, so we agree that faint support from the United States of this coup, almost universally supported by the Brazil government and Army to overthrow a bad regime, was wrong.

We will also agree that support from the U.S. was also unnecessary, as support from within Brazil was overwhelming. As I recall reading, Jango just up and left -- he didn't even try to hold on to the office from which he had made shambles of Brazilian economy -- he just left.

We will also agree that something is missing in a government where a change of government is easier to obtain by means of coup than through elections or impeachment.

Moving on, yeah, Vargas. Wasn't he elected, then made dictator, then elected again, then made dictator. Seems like that was a cycle that repeated itself from about 1930 onwards. As long as we're talking about totalitarian governments in Brazil, we might as well include the elected ones. Or even the imperial ones. Don't you want to claim that Portuguese annexation and rule was wrong, too?

With the exception of the Portuguese, it seems as though the periods of totalitarianism were all wished for by the people.

There were methods to remove Allende that didn't involve a coup d'etat.

There is a right way to depose a democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation?

He was gutting Chile, though, and creating an environment that was increasingly hostile to open and democratic discourse in that country.

No, he wasn't. This is just some stupid meme that gets tossed around so that people can rationalise US support of Pinochet.

Likely, Kissinger wasn't receiving any oversight from anybody, and his ability to dick around inside the system went unchecked.

Or even more likely, the powers that be that supported the coup were making so much money that they wanted Kissinger to do this stuff.

Expropriate is exactly the right word to use, as there was no compensation to the foreign owners of the seized property.

Bullshit. Most US companies get pissed off because they get reimbursed according to what they claim on their taxes. The fact that they claim their assets as being far less than they are actually worth is their fault.

Right. And those that hate Pinochet should also dislike Allende for it was his terrible marxist rule that caused his country to starve due to his socialistic economic policies, which lead to the climate where someone like Pinochet felt they needed to take over.

This is utter crap. Do you have any support for this at all?

Yes indeed. While a dictatorship is always a horrible system, a right wing dictatorship, that is, outlawing political freedom but freedom of market is always better system than a left wing dictatorship, which not only outlaws economic but also political freedom.

Unfortunately, Allende's government was a left wing democracy. Not a dictatorship, and democracies are always better than dictatorships.

Also, to his corruption and the fears that he was bringing leftist Chile further in line with the Soviet sphere of influence, which should not be and was not tolerated.

Soviet support of Allende was minimal in comparison to the millions of dollars and working hours spent by the US in an effort to depose him.

While Allende and Castro and many others like him are viewed as near Gods by international Leftists, they leave behind them hyperinflation, ruined economies and failed states.

But Allende didn't do that, did he?

In comparison, to Pinochet, who is hated internationally by leftists, he left behind a free democracy, a free market society, the most stable nation in Latin-America, an economic powerhouse and actually stepped down after being voted out of his political rule.

Pinochet didn't leave behind any of these things. The Chilean people managed to build that despite his dictatorship and efforts to rob the country blind. If you want to believe that a dictator created a democracy, that's fine. But the rest of us will stick to reality.

Why is a coup so much easier to accomplish in the lower Americas than an impeachment, or even waiting out the bad guy until new elections?

On the face of it, there must be a real contempt for the rule of law, but I'm sure there's more to it.

We've all had the same dissatisfaction with government, but no one mobilizes the army to overthrow it.

That has to do with many different historical factors. One of them is the fact that in North America, the landowner was often the person who settled and worked the land, while in Latin America, the one who owned and profited from the land was usually some member of the Spanish nobility who only cared about profit. The North American settler, on the other hand, was more interested in creating a stable environment and investing in his or her own community, building infrastructure, etc.

On the note of the OP, the media has often been directly involved in coup d'états in Latin America. They've even received CIA money to do so... (http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp#A.%20Covert%20Action%20and%20Other%20Clandestine%20Activities.)

2. Support for Media

In addition to buying propaganda piecemeal, the Station often purchased it wholesale by subsidizing Chilean media organizations friendly to the United States. Doing so was propaganda writ large. Instead of placing individual items, the CIA supported -or even founded- friendly media outlets which might not have existed in the absence of Agency support.

From 1953 through 1970 in Chile, the Station subsidized wire services, magazines written for intellectual circles, and a right-wing weekly newspaper. According to the testimony of former officials, support for the newspaper was terminated because it became so inflexibly rightist as to alienate responsible conservatives.

By far, the largest -and probably the most significant- instance of support for a media organization was the money provided to El Mercurio, the major Santiago daily, under pressure during the Allende regime. The support grew out of an existing propaganda project. In 1971 the Station judged that El Mercurio, the most important opposition publication, could not survive pressure from the Allende government, including intervention in the newsprint market and the withdrawal of government advertising. The 40 Committee authorized $700,000 for El Mercurio on September 9, 1971, and added another $965,000 to that authorization on April 11, 1972. A CIA project renewal memorandum concluded that El Mercurio and other media outlets supported by the Agency had played an important role in setting the stage for the September 11, 1973, military coup which overthrew Allende.

Okay, so we agree that faint support from the United States of this coup, almost universally supported by the Brazil government and Army to overthrow a bad regime, was wrong.

Good. That was all I was saying. The same goes to Chile, and, well, just about every nation in South America, with varying degrees (or even existences) of "people wanted it".

As for the rest, true. Or mostly true. Always remember that people are, unfortunately, frequently fooled by some "leaders" into totalitarian regimes. And, regardless, if the people's will is for their will to be ignored, then something is wrong.

Good. That was all I was saying. The same goes to Chile, and, well, just about every nation in South America, with varying degrees (or even existences) of "people wanted it".

But simple agreement makes for some very dull discussions. Personally, I'd be thrilled if governments never, ever meddled in each other's affairs. That would certainly be difficult nowadays, if not absolutely contrary to human nature.

But simple agreement makes for some very dull discussions.

Well, yes, but, as Captain Obvious once said, we can agree on stuff we can agree on.

There is a right way to depose a democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation?

Depose is the wrong word to use, and you should read what I wrote in response to a similar post from Heikoku.



No, he wasn't. This is just some stupid meme that gets tossed around so that people can rationalise US support of Pinochet.

First off, the stupid meme is that Allende was building some sort of utopian socialist state.

You are, quite simply, totally wrong. Allende's ability to rule the country, the collapse of international copper prices and many other elements lead to increasing domestic chaos. Hyperinflation had begun to ravage the Chilean economy, and the Vuskovic plan was not succeeding. Failed coup's, an increasingly discontent judiciary and legislature, who were openly condemning the actions of the Allende government, and the increasing unruly public behavior of his own cabinet ministers indicate that Allende was in political trouble, with or without American intervention. It is not just some sort of stupid meme.



Or even more likely, the powers that be that supported the coup were making so much money that they wanted Kissinger to do this stuff.

And who might that be? You do realize that even after Pinochet's coup d'etat, the Chilean copper mines remained under national control, Anaconda was already ruined, and the primary American interests of the pre-nationalization timeframe did not gain much at all? This was done solely out of Kissinger and the Nixon Administration's increasing paranoia on all matters, both foreign and domestic.

The only people who really derived much benefit from the coup d'etat were the Junta members and their political allies.

The only people who really derived much benefit from the coup d'etat were the Junta members and their political allies.
And the people who got their businesses back when Pinochet put much of business that was in the hands of the government under Allende back into the hands of the people.

And the people who got their businesses back when Pinochet put much of business that was in the hands of the government under Allende back into the hands of the people.

Ask any industry owner, any corporate president, ANYONE, whether they'd rather lose their businesses or see their sons and daughters slaughtered by a militant right-wing dictatorship. Even assuming Allende was doing things as serious as you claim or with no buyback.

slaughtered by a militant right-wing dictatorship.
They wouldn't have been if they weren't communists or people trying to prevent his stabilizing of the state which was thrown into dismay and turbulent times during leftist rule.

It was a fight against Communism to live in a free society. The dictatorship was a safeguard on free-society until stability and order could be returned the country that the Communists were trying to circumvent.

Anti-Communism that must resort to violence can be acceptable if the situation calls for it, because anti-Communists are abolitionists fighting to prevent the enslavement of humanity from Communism.

They wouldn't have been if they weren't communists or people trying to prevent his stabilizing of the state which was thrown into dismay and turbulent times during leftist rule.

It was a fight against Communism to live in a free society. The dictatorship was a safeguard on free-society until stability and order could be returned the country that the Communists were trying to circumvent.

Anti-Communism that must resort to violence can be acceptable if the situation calls for it, because anti-Communists are abolitionists fighting to prevent the enslavement of humanity from Communism.

Wow. I bet you wish you knew anything of what you're talking about when you defend the indefensible.

Dictatorships safeguard nothing, and if capitalism must resort to genocide and totalitarianism to defend itself, then chances are it's not a good system to begin with. The dictatorship was evil men being evil, and that's that. Free societies are built DESPITE dictatorships, not BECAUSE of them. The ends do not justify the means.

Depose is the wrong word to use, and you should read what I wrote in response to a similar post from Heikoku.

What is the right word, then? I'm curious to see how meddling in a sovereign country's affairs can be rationalised through the use of nicer language.

[QUOTE]You are, quite simply, totally wrong. Allende's ability to rule the country, the collapse of international copper prices and many other elements lead to increasing domestic chaos.

Allende was not in control of the international copper price, so I fail to see how that can be blamed on him. And his ability to rule the country was fine, except when it was being directly undermined by people in the employ of the CIA.

Hyperinflation had begun to ravage the Chilean economy, and the Vuskovic plan was not succeeding.

Actually, it did quite well until the US blockade against Chile. You know, the one that led to hyperinflation.

Failed coup's,

...instigated by the CIA.

an increasingly discontent judiciary and legislature, who were openly condemning the actions of the Allende government,

...again, instigated by the CIA,

and the increasing unruly public behavior of his own cabinet ministers indicate that Allende was in political trouble,

Wait, are you saying that the Chilean people would have put up with seventeen years of brutal dictatoship so that they didn't have to see cabinet minsters being unruly?

with or without American intervention. It is not just some sort of stupid meme.

Yet you have no evidence for this meme.

And who might that be? You do realize that even after Pinochet's coup d'etat, the Chilean copper mines remained under national control, Anaconda was already ruined, and the primary American interests of the pre-nationalization timeframe did not gain much at all? This was done solely out of Kissinger and the Nixon Administration's increasing paranoia on all matters, both foreign and domestic.

ITT, the Riggs Bank, Barrick Gold, Placer Dome, New York-based International Paper, and many other corporations benefited directly from the Pinochet regime. And while the mines were still nationalised, Anaconda and oither companies were given tax free leases on the mines, basically handing over all profits from the mines to Anaconda and company.

The only people who really derived much benefit from the coup d'etat were the Junta members and their political allies.

You keep telling yourself that.

And the people who got their businesses back when Pinochet put much of business that was in the hands of the government under Allende back into the hands of the people.

I bet you can't name one Chilean citizen who got his or her company back from the government when Pinochet took power.

They wouldn't have been if they weren't communists or people trying to prevent his stabilizing of the state which was thrown into dismay and turbulent times during leftist rule.

Actually, Allende was the one who got democratically elected. It was Pinochet who started a civil war and caused massive bloodshed and chaos.

It was a fight against Communism to live in a free society. The dictatorship was a safeguard on free-society until stability and order could be returned the country that the Communists were trying to circumvent.

A dictatorship safeguards a free society? This assertion of yours is obviously contradictory and illogical.

Anti-Communism that must resort to violence can be acceptable if the situation calls for it, because anti-Communists are abolitionists fighting to prevent the enslavement of humanity from Communism.

See, Andalucaie. This is a clear example of how the meme about the rise of Communism in Latin America is used to rationalise despotism and US intervention.

Right. And those that hate Pinochet should also dislike Allende for it was his terrible marxist rule that caused his country to starve due to his socialistic economic policies, which lead to the climate where someone like Pinochet felt they needed to take over. Hmmmm...if you hate a person who ordered the torture and deaths of over 3000 documented cases, the documented tortures of tens of thousand more people, and caused the exile of many more thousands...you must also hate a person who did none of these things...because that person made the former person be so bad.

Nice doublethink.

Yes indeed. While a dictatorship is always a horrible system, a right wing dictatorship, that is, outlawing political freedom but freedom of market is always better system than a left wing dictatorship, which not only outlaws economic but also political freedom. Thus, as right wing dictatorships have much less governmental control over society, they are more likely to lead to free societies. Which, Pinochet's right wing dictatorship did, as I'd like to point out.
And I'd like to point out that as usual, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I'll also point out that I've made this clear to you, on exactly this point, more than once, so you really have no excuse.

Pinochet's dictatorship was not the reason for political freedom in Chile. Pinochet's dictatorship was the reason for the loss of political freedom in Chile. From his coup (the antithesis of democracy) to his politically repression and economically harmful policies (laid out for you previously...do you want me to repost it?), Pinochet's dictatorship was derailed finally by his own arrogance. He actually believed by allowing the first real vote in decades, he was going to win people over and be able to continue as President. What a shock when the PEOPLE chose freedom. Not Pinochet. The people.

Allende's society was not quite free at all, and as marxism is slavery, any opposition to marxism can be looked upon as an abolitionist movement. Please, don't get that on my shoes. Ugh, did you read that on a t-shirt somewhere? Please...argue your points with more than rhetoric.

Also, to his corruption and the fears that he was bringing leftist Chile further in line with the Soviet sphere of influence, which should not be and was not tolerated. That's right! To save you we must rape you with dogs, apply electric shocks to your genitals, rape your children, then mutilate you and dump you from helicopters into the sea! Thank goodness we were there to stop you from unnamed evils!



While Allende and Castro and many others like him are viewed as near Gods by international Leftists, they leave behind them hyperinflation, ruined economies and failed states. A claim you can't make in Allende's case, as there was heavy US interference in the economic restructuring of Allende's democratic government. We'll never know if it would have worked out. What we do know is that Pinochet caused a deeper and more damaging recession than Allende ever did...we know this because we saw him 'work his magic' for decades. So while you have supposition in the case of Allende, we have reality and facts in the case of Pinochet.

In comparison, to Pinochet, who is hated internationally by leftists, he left behind a free democracy, a free market society, the most stable nation in Latin-America, an economic powerhouse and actually stepped down after being voted out of his political rule.
Awww, the things you would have him take credit for. I suppose I must repost.

To counter the myth of the ‘salvation of Chile by Pinochet’.

Many people credit Agusto Pinochet Urgarte with the ‘Salvation of Chile’, from the horrors of socialism. That he had a confirmed 3000 plus civilians disappeared, tortured, and murdered, and tens of thousands more confirmed tortured, is brushed away with the claim that Salvador Allende’s Chile would have been worse.

Pinochet’s crimes against humanity are, so these supporters argue, tempered by the economic success of Chile during his dictatorship, creating a South American powerhouse.

Let me debunk these notions. I’ll break this down, piece by piece.

Pinochet took power in a bloody coup on September 11, 1973. Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy. Industries nationalized by Salvador Allende were privatised, and this privitisation continued on into the social sector. The Chicago School of Economics (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm) (free market libertarianism) was given free reign for 16 years in Chile in order to prove its economic model.

During those 16 years, economic growth was actually slower in Chile than in any other Latin American country. This lack of growth was by no means uniform. The GDP in Chile was average in the 60s, plummeted in the 70s (remember, Salvador Allende was only in power from 1971 – 1973, so this can not be blamed solely on him), and jumped substantially in the 80s and 90s.(1) The economy experienced major highs and major lows, and it is important to understand what was happening during those swings.

Overall, from 1960 – 2002, Chile experienced a 2.5% annual per capital GDP growth. This has outperformed all other Latin American countries. However, in the period from 1960 – 1980, 9 years of which were led by Pinochet, 3 by Allende, there was growth of only 1.6%, matched only be Venezuela, while most other nations were seeing record increases, Ecuador among the highest with 5.4%. From 1981 – 2002, Chile by far surpassed its peers with a rate of 3.2% compared to negative numbers in the neighbouring nations of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru. (2)


Chile’s main export to the world is copper. US companies owned almost all of Chile’s copper mines by the 60s. Eduardo Frei, president of Chile prior to Allende, attempted to nationalize these mines, but was blocked by the business community and failed. Allende succeeded where Frei had failed, nationalizing not only the copper industry, but also the banking industry, and other foreign-owned assets, sparking the resentment among Chile’s elites and US businessmen that eventually led to the coup.

Pinochet took the reins, but without an economic plan of his own. In 1975, inflation rose as high as 341%. He turned to a group of ‘Chicago Boys’ to extricate himself from his economic woes. From thereon in, they controlled the economy completely. The economic ‘shock treatment’ began.

Between 1974 and 1975, they managed to get inflation under control. However, at the same time, unemployment rose from 9.1% to 18.7%. Chile suffered the worst recession they’d had since the 30s. This was also a period of extreme political repression, matched only later when similar economic troubles hit the country in the ‘82.. The economic changes being wrought were not optional.

The ‘economic miracle’ often referred to when discussing Chile supposedly happened between 1978 and 1981. Chile’s economy grew at an average of 6.6% a year, a truly staggering amount. Foreign investment was a huge part of this as nearly all restrictions were lifted during this period. All but 25 of 507 state-owned enterprises were privitised during these years.

However, what is often not taken into account is the impact of the depression. Astounding economic growth did not mean that Chile was actually in a fantastic economic state…it was in essence regaining lost ground. A parallel the Great Depression suffered by the US in the 30s can be drawn. From growth rates (US) in the negatives from 1930 – 1934, to a positive growth rate of 14.1% in 1936, and yet it took many more years to get the economy back to pre-Depression levels.(3) The same was true in Chile.

So what powered this growth in Chile during the period between 1978 and 1981? Very simply, unemployed workers cut during the deep depression returned to work. ‘Growth’ in this sense was simply returning the economy to the state it had been in previous to the crash experienced directly following the coup.

“And even then, much of Chile's growth was artificial or fictitious. Between 1977 and 1981, 80 percent of Chile's growth was in the unproductive sectors of the economy, like marketing and financial services. Much of this was speculation attracted to Chile's phenomenally high interest rates, which, at 51 percent in 1977, were the highest in the world.

Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. (8) The country's biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.

The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US$7.7 billion. The total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile's GNP for each of three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is interesting to note that when the economy was booming, profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich were served. (10)

After the IMF loans came through, the Chilean economy began recovering in 1984. Again, it saw exceptionally high growth, averaging about 7.7 percent a year between 1986 and 1989. (11) But like the previous cycle, this was mostly due to actual growth, not potential growth. By 1989, the GDP per capita was still 6.1 percent below its 1981 level. (12)

So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (4)

Read that again. Despite years of record growth, the recessions, the loans, the debt…Chile did not experience significant growth during the ‘miracle years’.

Chile’s poverty rate in 1989 was a staggering 41.2%. The rich however, profited mightily during Pinochet’s rule. No other Latin American country had such income inequality during these years. Widespread unemployment kept wages down, and with no real state-funded social systems to provide for the unemployed or the poor, there was no ‘loss’ to the economy, except in production. The unemployment rate, overall, was worse in Chile than in any other Latin American nation. This loss in productivity is a major reason for the inability of the economy to truly outperform it’s neighbours in total overall growth.

The free reign given to the Chicago boys was backed up by a concerted war against the civilian population. Disappearances, tortures and murders were the worst during the recession of 1975 and 1982. There was no political freedom whatsoever. (Allende allowed even his worst detractors to vilify him on the radio). Labour unions were outlawed and only reinstituted once strict controls were in place.

The free-market policies of Pinochet’s Chile had other effects, such as on the environment.(5) A lack of environmental controls is a key aspect of free-market liberalisation. Santiago, the capital of Chile, is the 5th most polluted city in the world. Chile has extremely high mortality and sickness rates, beating out many of it’s neighbours.

Chile’s economy is still growing, but nonetheless, it lags behind most other Latin American nations. Profits from Chile’s industries flow outward into foreign pockets. Chile has one of the highest foreign debts in the world. The “Economic Miracle of Chile’ is a myth.(6)

Some will say that Salvador Allende’s Chile could have been worse. We have no way to tell, no way to know. What we do know is that the economic miracle was anything but, and in return for this false miracle, Chile suffers from a legacy of brutality, repression, and horror.


(1) http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/draft_country_studies/LACSummary.pdf
(2) http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/DesarrolloEconomico/5/LCG2255PI/lcg2255_i_V.pdf
(3) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
(4) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
(5) http://www.foei.org/trade/activistguide/chile.htm
(6) http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/473159-1.html

anti-allende: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D
hating them on both sides: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken89.html

What is the right word, then? I'm curious to see how meddling in a sovereign country's affairs can be rationalised through the use of nicer language.

The response has already been made. You go and read it.



Allende was not in control of the international copper price, so I fail to see how that can be blamed on him. And his ability to rule the country was fine, except when it was being directly undermined by people in the employ of the CIA.

Once again, you are entirely wrong on this. A majority of the problems in Allende's Chile were domestic problems, born of the overreliance on copper mining, and the awful economic policies that were gutting the country.

Not to mention what he was doing to domestic civil rights and liberties.



Actually, it did quite well until the US blockade against Chile. You know, the one that led to hyperinflation.

Don't be silly. While the blockade harmed the Chilean economy, the primary problem was derived from the inflationary policies of Allende and Vuskovic. Without these policies, the blockade would not have resulted in 140% inflation rates all by its lonesome.

...instigated by the CIA.

Tanquetazo was, given all the available evidence, not instigated by the CIA. Combining domestic discontent with the recent visit of Fidel Castro, nationalist forces in Chile were becoming increasingly nervous about where Allende was leading the country. Thus, coups began to become increasingly prominent.



...again, instigated by the CIA,

Rather, it was instigated by increasing domestic discontent with the policies of Allende. Here is an English translation of what was passed in the Chamber of Deputies. Initiated by internal dissent, the dissolution of Allende's alliance with the Christian Democrats, and other internal factors.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy





Wait, are you saying that the Chilean people would have put up with seventeen years of brutal dictatoship so that they didn't have to see cabinet minsters being unruly?

I'm saying that when you're political allies and cabinet ministers go around waving guns in the faces of civilians, your government is going to take one hell of a hit in the opinions people are going to have of said government.



Yet you have no evidence for this meme.

The meme has been expressed on this forum so many times that I need not seek evidence for it. There are a significant number of leftists on this forum who would gladly fellate Allende, if they were given the opportunity. Never mind that he was a failure as a President, and not because of the actions of the United States.

ITT, the Riggs Bank, Barrick Gold, Placer Dome, New York-based International Paper, and many other corporations benefited directly from the Pinochet regime. And while the mines were still nationalised, Anaconda and oither companies were given tax free leases on the mines, basically handing over all profits from the mines to Anaconda and company.

And, somehow, Anaconda was defunct by 1977, ITT's financial situation with Chitelco was unaffected by the coup, Riggs was corrupt as hell, and remained so for many years, Barrick and Placer were both, and remain both, Canadian firms and International Paper didn't even exist until 1989. While some profited under the Pinochet regime, they didn't profit because of the Pinochet (save Riggs) regime.



You keep telling yourself that.

I'm not saying what happened in Chile was the right path, it wasn't. It was one of several wrong paths that Chile could have headed down, Pinochet was a ghastly leader as well, but to say that Allende was any closer to the right path is way off. There was another way, and it is regrettable that neither the US, the Chilean right or Allende opted for that direction.

They wouldn't have been if they weren't communists or people trying to prevent his stabilizing of the state which was thrown into dismay and turbulent times during leftist rule.

Read: It's okay to disrupt the democratic process and torture and murder people as long as you are a right-wing ideologue, and the people you're torturing and killing are leftists.

Didn't you just recently in another thread claim not to be a fascist? Laughable.