NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright for all of you that are bashing on the CIA for some reason... when it does its job right nobody ever knows about it. Sure we know a lot of things they have done wrong, but I am pretty sure that they do a lot more right than they do wrong.

I don't care what they do right, what they did in Chile was inexcusable.





MODEDIT: This thread has been split from a thread about a Spanish attempt to prosecute former President George W. Bush and others of his administration, which can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588215).

I don't care what they do right, what they did in Chile was inexcusable.
What happend in Chile was domestic and the CIA hardly even helped the actual coup. Stop blaming the CIA for a domestic revolution that they happend to support.
You know fully well what I was comparing, rightly, to 9/11.Yeah, the CIA supporting the defense of Afghanistan against Soviet aggression is the same as 9/11. You're like a broken record, it's a ridiculous position to have.

Besides, the responsibility of a free man is to stop dictatorships. Regardless of what economical system they preach. That is freedom, and that alone. Not to mention that, no, the governments here weren't communist - even assuming that them being so would legitimize the
Dictatorships are never the desired final outcome, but right wing dictatorships are more desired than left wing ones because they, by definition, allow economic freedom which already weakens government control over society. They are more likely to form politically free nations.

atrocity the US supported here, which is way worse than 9/11.
No. A domestic revolution caused by domestic issues (even if support by outside forces) is not the same as a direct attack on civilians simply to cause terror. Form the logical capacity to see it so.

Jesus Christ, you guys are arguing about this AGAIN?

What happend in Chile was domestic and the CIA hardly even helped the actual coup. Stop blaming the CIA for a domestic revolution that they happend to support.
Yeah, the CIA supporting the defense of Afghanistan against Soviet aggression is the same as 9/11. You're like a broken record, it's a ridiculous position to have.


Dictatorships are never the desired final outcome, but right wing dictatorships are more desired than left wing ones because they, by definition, allow economic freedom which already weakens government control over society. They are more likely to form politically free nations.


No. A domestic revolution caused by domestic issues (even if support by outside forces) is not the same as a direct attack on civilians simply to cause terror. Form the logical capacity to see it so.

1- I am comparing US support for the dictatorships here to 9/11. Indeed, given that 9/11 only killed about 4,000 people tops (including the Pentagon and others who might have gotten sick from the fumes and dust and so on) and that the dictatorships in South America killed way more people, they are way worse than 9/11 ever was.

2- Dictatorships are dictatorships. Besides, you weren't replacing a left-wing dictatorship with a right-wing one; you were replacing a left-wing DEMOCRACY with a right-wing dictatorship.

3- It was a coup, not a revolution. And American support to it was, by itself, a crime akin to Bin Laden's, if not much worse. And said crime was repeated throughout South America. LBJ was like Bin Laden. Nixon was like Bin Laden. And so were all the people who authorized the support for, or did support, these coups. The people who took direct actions in support of the coups in SA are no different from the hijackers. Well, they are, in which they lacked the balls to kill themselves along.

Jesus Christ, you guys are arguing about this AGAIN?

His view must never be seen as anything better than a bad joke.

His view must never be seen as anything better than a bad joke.

Yeah but, seriously, this isn't going anywhere. Maybe you need a mediator, someone to properly communicate in an unbiased fashion the major qualms you have with each other over this, and get to the bottom of this disagreement.

Yeah but, seriously, this isn't going anywhere. Maybe you need a mediator, someone to properly communicate in an unbiased fashion the major qualms you have with each other over this, and get to the bottom of this disagreement.

Hydey-kun, you sound like a marriage counselor.:eek2:

Hydey-kun, you sound like a marriage counselor.:eek2:

Well, they kind of remind me of a married couple. :p

The current organization must be torn to the ground and completely rebuilt as strictly an intelligence-gathering group if that is to happen.
That is a bad idea and I'd love to see you try. Thankfully, most people disagree with you and that won't happen.
TAI, I am no more a fan of communism than you are, but many of the dictators installed and/or supported by the U.S. were as bad or far worse than the people they replaced. Allende's economic policies were a total disaster, but at least the man never tortured, killed, or "disappeared" anyone.
I know you probably won't agree with my general point, and I respect that, but let me atleast show you the reality of Allende. The man you don't think was a threat.

If you don't want to read it all, atleast read where I have bolded. I have showed you, as stated by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, that Allende's regime used state sanctioned violence and torture, plus armed government left wing groups, used the schools to promote marxist propaganda, shut down freedom of speech and association against the government, shut down freedom of the press and in general worked to create a totalitarian state. Also, unrelated to this but still important was his working with and his backing by the KGB.

This is directly from the resolution of Chile’s Chamber of Deputies:

This is the complete text of the resolution that Chile’s Chamber of Deputies approved by 81 votes against 47, on August 22 1973. The resolution includes a list of the legal and constitutional violations committed by the government of President Salvador Allende. In the absence of a viable impeachment procedure, it "represents" the military ministers in the cabinet of president Allende, among other authorities, with this "grave breakdown of the Republic’s constitutional and legal order." Likewise, it reminds them "that, by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the laws of the land . . . it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land." After this call to "immediate" action by the equivalent of the US House of Representatives or the UK House of Commons, 18 days later, on September 11, 1973, the Chilean Armed Forces removed from office the President thus charged with violating the Chilean Constitution.

The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress’s oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller’s Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration’s constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile’s Channel 9, by assaulting that university’s new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
http://www.pensionreform.org/icpr/eys/declaration.html

Yeah but, seriously, this isn't going anywhere. Maybe you need a mediator, someone to properly communicate in an unbiased fashion the major qualms you have with each other over this, and get to the bottom of this disagreement.

Not gonna happen. I won't rest until his views are seen in the same light of support for the Holocaust.

Well, they kind of remind me of a married couple. :p

I know.:D

I know you probably won't agree with my general point, and I respect that, but let me atleast show you the reality of Allende. The man you don't think was a threat.

If you don't want to read it all, atleast read where I have bolded. I have showed you, as stated by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, that Allende's regime used state sanctioned violence and torture, plus armed government left wing groups, used the schools to promote marxist propaganda, shut down freedom of speech and association against the government, shut down freedom of the press and in general worked to create a totalitarian state. Also, unrelated to this but still important was his working with and his backing by the KGB.

This is directly from the resolution of Chile’s Chamber of Deputies:

Just because he was backed by the KGB doesn't mean he was a threat. Chile was a (relatively) poor country with a fraction of our population. Not even remotely menacing to the U.S. And if he truly did try to establish a communist dictatorship, the military would have overthrown him on its own. Either way, we should have taken no action in support of, or in opposition to, the coup. I personally think we should follow the Founders' advice of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all countries - alliances with none."

1- I am comparing US support for the dictatorships here to 9/11. Indeed, given that 9/11 only killed about 4,000 people tops (including the Pentagon and others who might have gotten sick from the fumes and dust and so on) and that the dictatorships in South America killed way more people, they are way worse than 9/11 ever was. You are comparing apples and oranges. They different acts and just totally different in every way possible.

2- Dictatorships are dictatorships.
How ignorant. So Russia and France are the same because they are both 'semi presidential' systems?

Besides, you weren't replacing a left-wing dictatorship with a right-wing one; you were replacing a left-wing DEMOCRACY with a right-wing dictatorship. I have already showed that the Chilean Chamber of Deputies shows that Allende was creating a marxist totalitarian state.

3- It was a coup, not a revolution. And American support to it was, by itself, a crime akin to Bin Laden's, if not much worse. And said crime was repeated throughout South America. LBJ was like Bin Laden. Nixon was like Bin Laden. And so were all the people who authorized the support for, or did support, these coups. The people who took direct actions in support of the coups in SA are no different from the hijackers. Well, they are, in which they lacked the balls to kill themselves along.
Well, that's your emotional reply but not reality. Neither LBJ nor Nixon were like Bin Laden and you make yourself sound quite young and juvenile by saying so. Also, it doesn't take 'balls' to kill yourself in a suicide bombing. It takes being brainwashed, being a religious fanatic or having nothing to lose. Not 'balls'.

I have already showed that the Chilean Chamber of Deputies shows that Allende was creating a marxist totalitarian state.

Are you still daring to defend Pinochet's regime?!

You are comparing apples and oranges. They different acts and just totally different in every way possible.


How ignorant. So Russia and France are the same because they are both 'semi presidential' systems?

I have already showed that the Chilean Chamber of Deputies shows that Allende was creating a marxist totalitarian state.


Well, that's your emotional reply but not reality. Neither LBJ nor Nixon were like Bin Laden and you make yourself sound quite young and juvenile by saying so. Also, it doesn't take 'balls' to kill yourself in a suicide bombing. It takes being brainwashed, being a religious fanatic or having nothing to lose. Not 'balls'.

1- They are both crimes that killed lots of people.

2- There's one thing that makes a comparison between two legitimate systems and two illegitimate ones invalid. I'll let you figure out what it is.

3- "Was creating" was still Chile's business. Even if he DID create, it would be Chile's business.

4- They masterminded and green-lighted illegal actions that killed lots of people. The grunts who pulled them off performed illegal actions that killed lots of people. 9/11/1973 = 9/11/2001.

Also, TAI, did you know that the U.S. - by Zbigniew Brzezinski's own admission - deliberately provoked the U.S.S.R. into intervening in Afghanistan, to give the U.S.S.R. "their own" Vietnam War?
I did not but I'd love to read up on that if you have some credible links. That sounds very interesting indeed.
Not gonna happen. I won't rest until his views are seen in the same light of support for the Holocaust.
Hahahahahahahhahaha. Ridiculous. So supporting the anti-marxist side of a domestic revolution called for by Congress against a leader trying to form a marxist totalitarian state is the same as the holocaust?! :D You never cease to provide entertainment.
Well, they kind of remind me of a married couple. :p
Who's the man and who's the woman? :tongue:

Just because he was backed by the KGB doesn't mean he was a threat. Chile was a (relatively) poor country with a fraction of our population. Not even remotely menacing to the U.S. And if he truly did try to establish a communist dictatorship, the military would have overthrown him on its own. Either way, we should have taken no action in support of, or in opposition to, the coup. I personally think we should follow the Founders' advice of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all countries - alliances with none."
Look. I showed you how he was using violence, torture and was outlawing economic, political and social freedom. Also how he was forming a totalitarian state. I also showed you how the Congress called for the military to put an end to Allende. Then, a few days later the military did. The CIA happend to be on that side of the issue but the coup was caused by domestic conditions and the CIA didn't run the coup. That's not to say it never has, but not in Chile. That wasn't the case.

Neither one of those regimes is a dictatorship. I didn't say they were. I was showing how ridiculous it was to say that, for example, Chile under Pinochet is the same as North Korea under Kim Jong Il simply because they are both 'dictatorships'.

Are you still daring to defend Pinochet's regime?!

Si. Que pensavas? Que él no iba a hacerlo? :p

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. I have the same question for TAI.

No se saca un clavo con otro clavo.

It's absurd. It's so absurd to keep insisting that Allende's government was worse for Chile. History has proven time and time again that Augusto Pinochet's regime was the darkest hour in Chile.

Not only that, it's fucked up to keep bringing this up. This is about GWB, who was as much of a murdered as Pinochet was.

I didn't say they were. I was showing how ridiculous it was to say that, for example, Chile under Pinochet is the same as North Korea under Kim Jong Il simply because they are both 'dictatorships'.

Let's see... They both have the power to do whatever they want. The people either follow their every order or turn up missing or dead at the hands of the overinflated military. The last thing I'd be worrying about is what economic system they have in light of that.

Hahahahahahahhahaha. Ridiculous. So supporting the anti-marxist side of a domestic revolution called for by Congress against a leader trying to form a marxist totalitarian state is the same as the holocaust?! :D You never cease to provide entertainment.

Coups. Not revolutions.

And "trying to form a Marxist totalitarian state" is yours to prove. Which wouldn't justify creating a Capitalist totalitarian state anyways.

Si. Que pensavas? Que él no iba a hacerlo? :p

Es que vamos! Ostia! Si lo trae a colacion cada vez. Esto no tiene un carajo que ver con el tema del OP. Por Dios!

Are you still daring to defend Pinochet's regime?!
I have already said that a dictatorship is not the desired final outcome, but a right wing dicatorship is more desirable than a marxist totalitarian state. I have said, do say and will always say that.

Having said that, I am glad that Pinochet also allowed democracy back to Chile and stepped down from power after allowing himself to be voted out. It makes his case alot easier to argue.

Having said that as well it is unfortunate that innocents died during the Pinochet regime, for those who were innocent. Those who were cronies of Allende and were trying to impose marxism on the country desired what they got. You try to enslave a country and you get what comes to you when people fight back.

3- "Was creating" was still Chile's business. Even if he DID create, it would be Chile's business.
And the Chilean military (not American military, not American CIA) was the one who carried out the will of Congress and removed Allende. So what's the problem?
They masterminded and green-lighted illegal actions that killed lots of people. The grunts who pulled them off performed illegal actions that killed lots of people. 9/11/1973 = 9/11/2001.
The CIA didn't 'mastermind' the Chilean revolution. That was the Chilean military's doing. The CIA simply supported it.

I did not but I'd love to read up on that if you have some credible links. That sounds very interesting indeed.

It was in an interview he gave awhile back. Here it is (http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html).

Look. I showed you how he was using violence, torture and was outlawing economic, political and social freedom. Also how he was forming a totalitarian state. I also showed you how the Congress called for the military to put an end to Allende. Then, a few days later the military did. The CIA happend to be on that side of the issue but the coup was caused by domestic conditions and the CIA didn't run the coup. That's not to say it never has, but not in Chile. That wasn't the case.

Which is deplorable, of course, but did not threaten the U.S. in any way. And Pinochet also clamped down very hard on freedom, and killed far more people than Allende ever would have, assuming Allende did indeed establish a dictatorship.

Es que vamos! Ostia! Si lo trae a colacion cada vez. Esto no tiene un carajo que ver con el tema del OP. Por Dios!

El empezó. Pero si és necesário, pasamos la pelea para otro topico.

I have already said that a dictatorship is not the desired final outcome, but a right wing dicatorship is more desirable than a marxist totalitarian state. I have said, do say and will always say that.

Having said that, I am glad that Pinochet also allowed democracy back to Chile and stepped down from power after allowing himself to be voted out. It makes his case alot easier to argue.

Having said that as well it is unfortunate that innocents died during the Pinochet regime, for those who were innocent. Those who were cronies of Allende and were trying to impose marxism on the country desired what they got. You try to enslave a country and you get what comes to you when people fight back.

Once again, talking from ignorance. I tire of this. Allende's government wasn't ok for Chile, but neither was Pinochet's. You're excusing, again, what's inexcusable.

And the Chilean military (not American military, not American CIA) was the one who carried out the will of Congress and removed Allende. So what's the problem?

The CIA didn't 'mastermind' the Chilean revolution. That was the Chilean military's doing. The CIA simply supported it.

Unelected foreign support for a bloody coup and a bloodier regime that had nothing to do with the will of the people.

Let's see... They both have the power to do whatever they want. The people either follow their every order or turn up missing or dead at the hands of the overinflated military. The last thing I'd be worrying about is what economic system they have in light of that.
The economic system is the most important thing.

Before you worry about your leaders, about your freedom of speech about what flag your country is flying, you will worry about your job and whether there is food on the table.

That is the issue that Pinochet's right wing, free-market regime came to address. That was the issue that made people largely not give a shit when Allende died during the coup. Because they were starving due to his marxist economic policies. They had no money, no food. And that was the reason why, when Pinochet allowed himself to step down and be voted out of power, he still had more votes FOR HIM, after his dictatorship, than Allende had for him when he was voted into power in the parliamentary system.

El empezó. Pero si és necesário, pasamos la pelea para otro topico.

Venga, que no te estoy echando la culpa, guapo. Es que no hay razon para traer a colacion este temilla.

The economic system is the most important thing.

Before you worry about your leaders, about your freedom of speech about what flag your country is flying, you will worry about your job and whether there is food on the table.

That is the issue that Pinochet's right wing, free-market regime came to address. That was the issue that made people largely not give a shit when Allende died during the coup. Because they were starving due to his marxist economic policies. They had no money, no food. And that was the reason why, when Pinochet allowed himself to step down and be voted out of power, he still had more votes FOR HIM, after his dictatorship, than Allende had for him when he was voted into power in the parliamentary system.

Oh, but they did give a shit when thousands started vanishing and dying. They did give a shit when the mass graves were uncovered. And guess who was the head of all that bullshit? Let me see you type it.

If I'm dead tomorrow because of an offhand remark I make today, how the hell can I put food on the table?

^ This.

Also, many of the people killed by the Pinochet regime weren't even communists (not that their deaths would have been justified even if they were communists; I'm just saying). Even people who committed the "crime" of treating victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Cassidy#Torture) of the dictatorship suffered extreme torture, or worse.

Even if Allende did have to be overthrown, why did a dictatorship have to follow? Why not (theoretically speaking) just overthrow him and hold elections?

Arguably the United States...then there's Iraq, which he effectively ruled at gunpoint, Afghanistan where the same situation is trying to be mediated...
Could it be, you know, possible, if just a little bit, that you are ridiculously misusing the word 'nazi'? ? ?
Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet... The most important end result of their rule in their respective countries was the same - millions dead and millions missing.
Um . . . are you really comparing Pinochet with Hitler and Stalin and saying that Pinochet killed millions?

I have one question for you. Do you see redeeming attributes to a dictatorship? Do you really?

If it's the economical system he worships, it's good, hur-hur!

Mind you, he can't even argue without a big doubt that Chile, let alone Brazil, were heading towards communism.

If it's the economical system he worships, it's good, hur-hur!

Mind you, he can't even argue without a big doubt that Chile, let alone Brazil, were heading towards communism.

Yes, I can see that. I just don't get why is it that his speech is so ardent, so fervent in defending something he truly doesn't know. Because no matter how many history books, how many socio-political manuscripts he reads, his experience of this is null. And it's sad to see a mind like his so bent in justifying totalitarianism.

I have one question for you. Do you see redeeming attributes to a dictatorship? Do you really?
If I see marxist economic reforms causing starvation and hyperinflation (so that you can't buy food or whatever because your money is worthless), and then I see a right wing dictatorship who creates a good economic climate (or atleast a far better one that what existed before), then yes I will support their delivering of their people out of those ruined economic policies.

I will also hope, however, that that regime gives way to democracy, once economic freedom is given back to the people.

It just so happens that in Chile, that is exactly what happend.

The only thing I can say with economic freedom is, it reduces the power of the state, other civilian bodies have more control over important things, like allocation of resources. Thus the dictatorship is weakened. However, Pinochet banned unions IIRC, which is a vital element of economic freedom that threatens the power of the state in the first place.

If I see marxist economic reforms causing starvation and hyperinflation (so that you can't buy food or whatever because your money is worthless), and then I see a right wing dictatorship who creates a good economic climate (or atleast a far better one that what existed before), then yes I will support their delivering of their people out of those ruined economic policies.

I will also hope, however, that that regime gives way to democracy, once economic freedom is given back to the people.

It just so happens that in Chile, that is exactly what happend.

As a native of a country that ACTUALLY went through it, TAI, I'm telling you it isn't worth it.

I'm also pointing out that you didn't prove Allende OR Goulart were taking either country towards such a scenario, and you can't even argue that it was right by the US to support the oppressive regimes brought.

So, you have nothing.

If I see marxist economic reforms causing starvation and hyperinflation (so that you can't buy food or whatever because your money is worthless), and then I see a right wing dictatorship who creates a good economic climate (or atleast a far better one that what existed before), then yes I will support their delivering of their people out of those ruined economic policies.

I will also hope, however, that that regime gives way to democracy, once economic freedom is given back to the people.

It just so happens that in Chile, that is exactly what happend.

At what cost, TAI? How many lost their lives just so that Pinochet could "restore" economical "freedom" to the country? And if he did Chile such good, why then did he die in Spain awaiting trial by Garzon himself, for crimes against humanity? How can you still believe his government was better after all that's been documented? You fucking baffle me. And this is not because I was touched by a regime much like Pinochet's, but because any person in their right mind would see the precise list of abominations these regimes bring to the people.

As a native of a country that ACTUALLY went through it, TAI, I'm telling you it isn't worth it.

I'm also pointing out that you didn't prove Allende OR Goulart were taking either country towards such a scenario, and you can't even argue that it was right by the US to support the oppressive regimes brought.

So, you have nothing.

Goulart was a moderate social democrat that was a freely-elected and democratic head of state. He also sincerely wanted good relations with the U.S.

Goulart was a moderate social democrat that was a freely-elected and democratic head of state. He also sincerely wanted good relations with the U.S.

I know. :p

As a native of a country that ACTUALLY went through it, TAI, I'm telling you it isn't worth it.
Brazil is not the same as Chile and Brazil didn't have the same free-market experiment like Chile did. Like I said, not all dictatorships are the same.

I'm also pointing out that you didn't prove Allende OR Goulart were taking either country towards such a scenario, and you can't even argue that it was right by the US to support the oppressive regimes brought.

Yes, I did. I showed you in the resolution from the Chilean Chamber of Deputies that they stated that Allende was controlling the press, using schools to indoctrinate students with propaganda, allowed left wing paramilitaries, was controlling TV that was to be independent, was arresting those that spoke against the government and that organized against the government, allowed the use of violence and torture, made illegal land siezures as part of his marxist economic policy. etc etc etc. You were just too lazy to read it, like usual, because of "tl;dr" which I told you last time you tried to 'use' it was not an acceptable form of debate.

The only thing I can say with economic freedom is, it reduces the power of the state, other civilian bodies have more control over important things, like allocation of resources. Thus the dictatorship is weakened. However, Pinochet banned unions IIRC, which is a vital element of economic freedom that threatens the power of the state in the first place.
Indeed.

I seriously doubt that, ever hear of the Roman Empire? it was pretty damn wealthy, even at the end, wealthy enough for its remnant to go on for a thousand years, didnt stop the both of them from falling however...

Or perhaps the United States as an example, the Colonists were very employed and very well fed, however when the King refused to hear their pleas for Representation, a Revolution started...
You are missing the point again. I'm not saying the only reason people revolt is due to economic policy, I am saying that if people are starving due to shitty economic policies, there are going to be problems . . . see the difference?

Indeed.


You agree that the fact that he banned unions severely reduces the importance of the economic freedom there was under Pinochet?

At what cost, TAI? How many lost their lives just so that Pinochet could "restore" economical "freedom" to the country? And if he did Chile such good, why then did he die in Spain awaiting trial by Garzon himself, for crimes against humanity? How can you still believe his government was better after all that's been documented? You fucking baffle me. And this is not because I was touched by a regime much like Pinochet's, but because any person in their right mind would see the precise list of abominations these regimes bring to the people.
And while I understand your position, Nanatsu, my case is shown more clearly by showing you that 44% of Chileans voted to continue Pinochet's rule when he asked them to vote him, either out of power to to continue to rule. 56% voted against it, so he stepped down, but still 44% voted for him to continue, which shows something. It also must be noted that Chile continued to flourish, economically, after Pinochet stepped down because nobody wanted to alter his economic policy and, indeed, improved upon his economic reforms, democratically.

And while I understand your position, Nanatsu, my case is shown more clearly by showing you that 44% of Chileans voted to continue Pinochet's rule when he asked them to vote him, either out of power to to continue to rule. 56% voted against it, so he stepped down, but still 44% voted for him to continue, which shows something. It also must be noted that Chile continued to flourish, economically, after Pinochet stepped down because nobody wanted to alter his economic policy and, indeed, improved upon his economic reforms, democratically.

Which still, and you fail to see this, doesn't justify his means. You do not understand this at all, do you? To you it's about the economy. I hope that if there's a coming back, you do not come back and live in the hell of a dictatorship. You speak confidently from the comfort of history. Tell this to those who lost loved ones because of Pinochet. Tell this to the many that were persecuted. Tell this to the people who carry the scars of those years. I am done with you and your apologetics of Augusto Pinochet and every single regime the world has seen.

But aside from the union issue, here's what's important:

No, what would be relevant, is whether he actually increased living standards. If you want to back up your argument, you should at least start with a source on that.

No, what would be relevant, is whether he actually increased living standards. If you want to back up your argument, you should at least start with a source on that.
Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

No, living standards under Pinochet. Not now.

No se saca un clavo con otro clavo.

It's absurd. It's so absurd to keep insisting that Allende's government was worse for Chile. History has proven time and time again that Augusto Pinochet's regime was the darkest hour in Chile.

Not only that, it's fucked up to keep bringing this up. This is about GWB, who was as much of a murdered as Pinochet was.
It's typical TAI. He can't make a good argument about the topic, so he just tries to hijack the [edit] thread into what he likes to do -- namely irritate other people by spouting these same old, offensive and obviously false remarks which he never makes any attempt to support except by spamming up the thread with extensive cut and paste unaccompanied by explanation or argument of his own.

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

That's DESPITE Pinochet, not BECAUSE of him.

That's DESPITE Pinochet, not BECAUSE of him.

This is all conjecture at the moment, which is why I want TAI to provide an actual source.

No, living standards under Pinochet. Not now.
It's directly related. Pinochet instituted the economic reform/policy that built up the standard of living Chile sees this day. It's a well known fact that even people who don't like Pinochet in Chile have not, in general, fucked with his economic model. It obviously wasn't immediate, but nothing ever is. The difference between this 'campaign promise' from Pinochet and any other campaign promises was that this one came true. . . big time.
The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.

Since Pinochet stepped down, Chile has become one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[2] Within the greater Latin American context it leads in terms of competitiveness, quality of life, political stability, globalization, economic freedom, low perception of corruption and comparatively low poverty rates.[3] It also ranks high regionally in freedom of the press, human development and democratic development. Its status as the region's richest country in terms of gross domestic product per capita (at market prices[4] and purchasing power parity[5]) is countered by its high level of income inequality, as measured by the Gini index.[6]

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

That's DESPITE Pinochet, not BECAUSE of him.
Would be nice for your argument, but no. In reality successive governments (after Pinochet) continued Pinochet's economic policies. Pinochet created these policies, initiated them, and let them work their magic. The governments after him continued with that policy.

It's directly related.

Not to your argument, obviously. You don't always think that the ends justify the means do you. If Pinochet murdered ten million innocents, you wouldn't think the relative prosperity Chile benefits from today justifies what Pinochet did. You have argued that living under Pinochet was a lot better than living under Allende, to support this, you should really be providing a source showing living and safety (including safety from state oppression) standards under both dictators.

Not to your argument, obviously. You don't always think that the ends justify the means do you. If Pinochet murdered ten million innocents, you wouldn't think the relative prosperity Chile benefits from today justifies what Pinochet did. You have argued that living under Pinochet was a lot better than living under Allende, to support this, you should really be providing a source showing living and safety (including safety from state oppression) standards under both dictators.
Well, seeing as Pinochet has 16,601,707 people, there wouldn't be much left if he murdered 10 million people, but no. If you are killing 10 million people, you are either (like Stalin) using failed economic policy from which people are starving or you're just insane and killing people because you're insane (like Stalin). Pinochet was neither . . . he didn't just kill for the lulz. Don't get me wrong, there were innocents killed by his regime, though not all of who were killed were innocent, and that is bad. But I'm not arguing that Pinochet's regime was super happy fantastic fun land, I'm arguing that it was the best course of action for Chile at a time when marxist policy was literally destroying the country.

And you totally avoided by response to you about that economic policy, where I totally answered your question and showed you my point.

What doesn't connect, actually? The fac that Pinochet created many economic reforms intended to turn the country around from the direction Allende was bringing it? The fact that said reforms ended up working? Or the fact that successive governments, even those who didn't really like Pinochet, have continued said economic policy?
Everything you claim above as a fact, is in fact, nothing but an unsupported claim of your own. You make such claims. Then you post numbers. But you fail to show any reasoning that actually connects the numbers to the causes you claim. The fact that many, many -- I'd hazard the vast majority of historians and political analysts disagree with your so-called analysis indicates to me that you are just making this shit up. This is the criticism I have always had of all your arguments. They appear superficially to be very well prepared, but in reality they are all sizzle and no steak.

Then you don't support Pinochet or the Brazilian Dictatorship.

Not to love the dictator is a big disgrace...

Ok, so I showed you what happend under Pinochet, now here it what Chile was like under Allende right before Pinochet took over:


That's only a bit of what I asked. Also, the most important bit you are going to have to show is that Allende was also a brutal dictator that traumatized as many as Pinochet did. Also, you should cite your sources.


No it's not. I showed you Chie's economic situation, as a direct result of the policies and reforms that Pinochet created, which succesive governments have continued. That is super duper relevant.

No, as I already said, the ends (Chile's relative prosperity) does not inherently justify the means (the people Pinochet traumatized).

Everything you claim above as a fact, is in fact, nothing but an unsupported claim of your own. You make such claims. Then you post numbers. But you fail to show any reasoning that actually connects the numbers to the causes you claim. The fact that many, many -- I'd hazard the vast majority of historians and political analysts disagree with your so-called analysis indicates to me that you are just making this shit up. This is the criticism I have always had of all your arguments. They appear superficially to be very well prepared, but in reality they are all sizzle and no steak.
Look, I'm making stated 3 facts, two of which you don't need numbers. First, I said that Pinochet instituted many economic reforms in order to change the direction of the country that Allende was bringing it. Do you deny this fact?

Second I said that because of the capitalistic reforms, Chile went on the route to economic progress seen to this day, and although there were some economic recessions on the road to getting there, that is capitalism and happens in any capitalistic state. But the reforms did end up working because nobody has changed the economic policy of Chile and Chile has done very well for itself. That I've showed using numbers, though I have no idea what I'm not allowed to do that.

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

Do you deny that?

Third I said that that successive governments have indeed continued these economic policies since Pinochet was voted out of power. Do you deny that?

So I'm supposed to pretend that you haven't been spending the last few pages arguing that installing mass murderers like Pinochet was a good thing based on some nebulous idea that he made some unproven changes to the economic system?
Fighting back against the formation of a marxist totalitarian state is self defense. That was my point.


Because they had that alternative stolen from them by illegal means. And you spoke in support of the whole. You're trying to worm your way out of this.
You asked me if I supported people working in sweat shops, I said yes.

You asked me if I support siezing people's land and property and such, I said no.

It's really not much more difficult than that.

Once more, I shall copy/past an old post:

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 one of the 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, claiming this is due to some sort of fantastic economic manouvering on the part of Pinochet is ridiculous. 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.co

That's only a bit of what I asked. Also, the most important bit you are going to have to show is that Allende was also a brutal dictator that traumatized as many as Pinochet did. Also, you should cite your sources.
Well he wasn't in power as long as Pinochet, but I showed you from the resolution from the Chamber of Deputies that Chile's congress voted in favor of the statement that he was creating a totalitarian state and he was, already, using violence, torture, outlawing freedom of press, speech, assembly, media . . . etc plus he was disregarding Congress and the constitution and was instituting marxist reforms.

That's all in the resolution I posted a few pages back. I won't repeat myself. My fingers are getting tired, lol. :p


No, as I already said, the ends (Chile's relative prosperity) does not inherently justify the means (the people Pinochet traumatized).
Which is your opinion and fine.

Once more, I shall copy/past an old post:

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.

I'll stop your biased and incorrect piece right there. Chile was not the absolute model of a decentralized economy when the state still owned the fucking copper industry. :rolleyes:

Is that all you got?

The problem is that most sources either portray Chile under Pinochet as an economically stagnant, backward country or as a robust, rapidly growing economic powerhouse, when in reality the truth is (probably) somewhere between those two extremes.

I'll stop your biased and incorrect piece right there. Chile was not the absolute model of a decentralized economy when the state still owned the fucking copper industry. :rolleyes:

Is that all you got?

Wait wait wait....

We can almost bet our lives on your source almost always being the Economist, but youre calling someone else's source biased? And you didnt even read the whole thing?

No la supercapitalist
Ricos puro supercapitalist
Sí, somos los supercapitalist
Super-Duper supercapitalist
Chile es la tierra no esta bien?
Te dejan si pudiera?
Si esta es buena tierra de Chile!
Queremos dejar que si pudiéramos

Look, I'm making stated 3 facts, two of which you don't need numbers. First, I said that Pinochet instituted many economic reforms in order to change the direction of the country that Allende was bringing it. Do you deny this fact?
I deny that it IS a fact. you have said this over and over again, yet you have not supported it, just as I said. Pinochet did X. You claim he did X for Y reasons. You claim that X altered Z which was being done by Allende. You fail to actually show that such relationships between the events actually existed.

Second I said that because of the capitalistic reforms, Chile went on the route to economic progress seen to this day, and although there were some economic recessions on the road to getting there, that is capitalism and happens in any capitalistic state. But the reforms did end up working because nobody has changed the economic policy of Chile and Chile has done very well for itself. That I've showed using numbers, though I have no idea what I'm not allowed to do that.
And that is another non-fact based on an assumption you make about what Chile would have done had Pinochet not been put in power. But unless you have a magic alternate history machine that shows you what Chile's fate would have been under a continued Allende regime, then you have no way of knowing that said prosperity was due to Pinochet as opposed to any of a number of other possible factors.

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

Do you deny that?
I deny that it has any relevance. I stand by my criticism that you are just lining up facts next to your favorite interpretation without regard for whether they actually fit it.

Third I said that that successive governments have indeed continued these economic policies since Pinochet was voted out of power. Do you deny that?
You are repeating yourself. You already asked this question, and I already responded to it.

Fighting back against the formation of a marxist totalitarian state is self defense. That was my point.
Then so is fighting back against the formation of a capitalist totalitarian state. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and you don't get to claim a moral imperative for your authoritarian bullshit while denying it to the other side.

I'll stop your biased and incorrect piece right there. Chile was not the absolute model of a decentralized economy when the state still owned the fucking copper industry. :rolleyes:

Is that all you got?

No, the rest would be what follows that. Do try to keep up. It refutes every claim you've made about Pinochet's 'economic genius', just like it did the last time I posted it, and the time before that, and the time before that. You go ahead and ignore it, just like you always do. Your cries of 'bias' are most amusing.

You are very good at ignoring posts that prove you wrong, again and again. Except we notice.

Every (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14222980&postcount=305) single (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14223127&postcount=309) time (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14223497&postcount=334) you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14223508&postcount=336) do (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14223674&postcount=344) it.

I'll stop your biased and incorrect piece right there. Chile was not the absolute model of a decentralized economy when the state still owned the fucking copper industry. :rolleyes:

Is that all you got?
No, actually, she had a lot more in that post.

But I will give you this: You are the thread's resident expert on biased and incorrect claims. You are much better at posting such stuff than Neesika, any day of the week.

I deny that it IS a fact. you have said this over and over again, yet you have not supported it, just as I said. Pinochet did X. You claim he did X for Y reasons. You claim that X altered Z which was being done by Allende. You fail to actually show that such relationships between the events actually existed.


And that is another non-fact based on an assumption you make about what Chile would have done had Pinochet not been put in power. But unless you have a magic alternate history machine that shows you what Chile's fate would have been under a continued Allende regime, then you have no way of knowing that said prosperity was due to Pinochet as opposed to any of a number of other possible factors.


I deny that it has any relevance. I stand by my criticism that you are just lining up facts next to your favorite interpretation without regard for whether they actually fit it.


You are repeating yourself. You already asked this question, and I already responded to it.


Then so is fighting back against the formation of a capitalist totalitarian state. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and you don't get to claim a moral imperative for your authoritarian bullshit while denying it to the other side.
Ok, we're getting nowhere. I've made my claims and backed them up. Let's try this.

What caused this:

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

. . . if it wasn't Pinochet's economic reforms?

Most sources I've read show that Pinochet's policies had extremely mixed results. Some years were boom years, others were bust years. Many Chileans rose up from poverty; many others fell into poverty. It was a real mixed bag.

No, the rest would be what follows that.
The rest that followed the first statement it made, which was so ridiculously incorrect than a student taking Econ 101 could have refuted it.

Puh-lease. :p

Sending me wrong information does not equal proving me wrong, although they sound similar because both statements have the word 'wrong' in them.

Most sources I've read show that Pinochet's policies had extremely mixed results. Some years were boom years, others were bust years. Many Chileans rose up from poverty; many others fell into poverty. It was a real mixed bag.

Yes but if you take that sort of approach, it's more difficult to justify murder, torture and disappearances, like TAI does.

Most sources I've read show that Pinochet's policies had extremely mixed results. Some years were boom years, others were bust years. Many Chileans rose up from poverty; many others fell into poverty. It was a real mixed bag.
I've showed the economic situation. The positives were, well here:

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

Negatives were that inequality rose with the introduction of capitalism.

To be fair, pretty much all transitional economies, from socialist, to capitalist are normally pretty horrific. It usually takes at least 30 years or so for the benefits to really start paying back. I doubt anyone was expecting the transitional period to be rosy. You also can't deny that Chile today, is doing amazing, considering what it was like 30 years ago (compare it to many other nations that have recently departed from socialism), it's not that fictional to describe what happened as a miracle, as long as you keep it in context of what transitional economies are normally like, and not expecting immediate improvement (which nobody would really expect).

Edit: but as I already said, none of this justifies what Pinochet did.

Ok, we're getting nowhere. I've made my claims and backed them up. Let's try this.

What caused this:

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

. . . if it wasn't Pinochet's economic reforms?

Its the fact that he's gone and no longer able to terrorize the general populace with the threat of Genoecide; not to mention we are now 20 years after the fact and anything that happened in between those two decades could have caused this to happen and so you have no proof that what Pinochet did had any effect what so ever on Chile other than to make them fear a powerful and corrupt government.

No, it's not murder to impose a system, it's defense to resist a system being imposed upon me.

You? YOU?

Eres de Chile, por un acaso?

É brasileiro?

No?

Não?

Então não é "você".

Entonces no és "tu".

Wait wait wait....

We can almost bet our lives on your source almost always being the Economist, but youre calling someone else's source biased? And you didnt even read the whole thing?
I do use The Economist on a source, once or twice. . . but usually, as in like 90% of the time I use it as a news publication to make an OP. There's a difference. If you are talking about The Economist article that Neu Leonstein posted a while back on Chile, I did use that but used it with other sources, notably the resolution from the Chilean Congress.

I'm not just calling her source biased, I am showing why it's fucking incorrect, not just biased. I'll ask you though, do you think the article was correct in stating this?

Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy

I do use The Economist on a source, once or twice. . . but usually, as in like 90% of the time I use it as a news publication to make an OP. There's a difference. If you are talking about The Economist article that Neu Leonstein posted a while back on Chile, I did use that but used it with other sources, notably the resolution from the Chilean Congress.

I'm not just calling her source biased, I am showing why it's fucking incorrect, not just biased. I'll ask you though, do you think the article was correct in stating this?
Keep harping on that one phrase. I read the rest of the post and it is more convincing than your attack against it. You are failing. Even more than before.

I do use The Economist on a source, once or twice. . . but usually, as in like 90% of the time I use it as a news publication to make an OP. There's a difference. If you are talking about The Economist article that Neu Leonstein posted a while back on Chile, I did use that but used it with other sources, notably the resolution from the Chilean Congress.

I'm not just calling her source biased, I am showing why it's fucking incorrect, not just biased. I'll ask you though, do you think the article was correct in stating this?

Are you saying the economy under Pinochet wasnt decentralized? Because thats what the article is saying.

Are you saying the economy under Pinochet wasnt decentralized? Because thats what the article is saying.
Obviously in some aspects, but not in others. Copper, Chile's main resource, remained nationalized, which is a pretty big fucking thorn in the arguement of calling Chile a "model of a decentralized economy".

That's my point.

No, because the system that was in place under Allende was a marxist economic system that the 1973 coup was a defense AGAINST.

It was no more a defense than Lenin's revolution was a defense against Imperialism.

In fact, let's not call Castro's revolution a revolution either. It's a defense against capitalism and American imperialism. How about that?

You don't get to twist the definitions to fit what you want. Weasel all you want. Nobody's buying it.


Lol, you are trying to make an issue out of nothing. You started rambling about me supporting land siezures, which I said that's a ridiculous hypothetical (I'll give you a hint...that doesn't mean "yes, I do"). Then you asked me if I supported sweat shops.

Here's where you lie and omit the other attachment I put to sweat shops, the land seizures. It was something which you tacitly agreed to, without any form of denial of said attachments, and now insist you didn't.

Just like that idiot US politician who advocated armed revolution and is now pretending she never did.

Although I have some issues with that post, especially the references to 'shock treatment' (I have very little regard for that Klein nonsense), I still think it's important for TAI to note that it's an original argument, so he should address it all or at least the most relevant parts. Unlike a source, where it's not so bad to disregard it based on one major error, a poster does not have to be unbiased and always correct in everything they say before what they say can be addressed.
Heard and noted. In my defense I thought it was a source, hence why I kept repeating source.

Getting a response from someone like TAI is not really the point though, is it. It's more to highlight the emptiness of his arguments for the rest of the world. The fact that he tried to invalidate everything else in your post on the basis of his personal objection to one piece of rhetoric in it only enhances that demonstration. He has made it clear enough to me that he is not worth engaging on the topic of US Latin America policy, as he really knows nothing about it. And since he refuses to address the thread topic...there's really nothing more to be done with him.
Hehehe yes, I've been debating with like 10 different posters at the same time about South American policy for hours (well, years really) yet clearly I know nothing. :p
Once more, I shall copy/past an old post:

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.
Many killed were innocent, true. But many of those 'civilians' were also Allende's cronies or communist groups who were fighting to create a marxist state.



Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy.
Already shown that to be false.

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.
But the privitization didn't include the copper sector and the chicago boys were NOT given free reign as they demanded Pinochet implement a floating exchange rate, while he decided on a fixed exchange rate which caused the later recession around 82. That's a major deal.


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),
So it can be blamed on Allende because under him there was a total economic collapse and hyper inflation. That took forever to turn around and obvously, as Pinochet came to power during the middle of the economic crisis caused by Allende's policies, that economic climate was going to carry over into the time Pinochet served as head of state. It plummeted in the 70's, you are right . . . but it plummented in the early 70's, notably the part of the 70's that Allende was in power. ;)

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.
The economy experienced recessions, which are natural under a capitalistc economy, but in general experienced growth in the 80's well into the 90's and 2000's.

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%.
Right but it doesn't matter if Allende was in power "only 3 years" as he caused an economic collapse and hyperinflation . . . and it takes a while to come back from that. Obviously a transitional government, totally turning the economy around and out of a hyperinflated recession is going to not have INSANT results.

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)
Ok.

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.
that led to the coup . . . among many other things, of which I have shown in the resolution from the Chilean Congress which you either ignored or didn't see.

Pinochet took the reins, but without an economic plan of his own. In 1975, inflation rose as high as 341%.
High levels of inflation still existed from Allende's economic collapse, obviously. But, more curiously, just a few lines below you claim this:

"Between 1974 and 1975, they managed to get inflation under control." :confused:

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.
He turned to the Chicago Boys because he believed in this:

"To make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs."



Between 1974 and 1975, they managed to get inflation under control. However, at the same time, unemployment rose from 9.1% to 18.7%.
It takes time to reverse a bad economic climate you come into. The coup was in 1973, during an economic collapse under Allende. Do you really expect everything to be all better by 1974 or 1975? Even if Pinochet instituted every reform from the first day in office, it still takes a while for that to show, economically. But show it eventually did.



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.
Regaining lost ground from an economic collapse brought on by Allende's marxist economic policies. :p Why, yes, I agree.


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.
The crash of the economy was before the coup. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons for the coup. Get your facts straight.

“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.
Yes, how unproductive. 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.
Ok? But I thought you were talking about the growth from 1978 to 1981 . . . like you said just a few lines above . . . Your dates are off. ;)

"So what powered this growth in Chile during the period between 1978 and 1981?"

Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces.
Yes that is a natural occurance of being the world market. Japan has been hit hard from being in the world market, but it still is much better off than North Korea who refuses to join the world market.
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.
So the point you are making is that Chile, by joining the international market, more so than most latin-american countries at the time, was also effected negatively by the negative aspects of the international market. Wow, you don't say!? :p But it's still overall better to join the international market than not. Compare North Korea to South Korea.


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)
Interesting story, but what is your point? That an international financial crisis fucked with a country who was financially exposed? See the current financial crisis and the U.S., Iceland, UK, etc etc etc

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)
Ok? But GPD was still much higher than its neighbors and high in general for a latin-american country.

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)
No. First of all the coup was in 1937, yet you are counting 1972 as part of the Pinochet time. Your dates are off, like they have been the entire post. Also you conviently ignore the cost (in terms of time, for one) of reversing the effects of and getting out of the economic collapse that happend under Allende which caused Pincohet to get into power. So yeah, overall growth rates don't look good because one must take into account the cost of reversing the economic collapse of Allende. But eventually, once thta was reversed, Chile did very, very well.


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.
Unemployment was bad in Chile because of the capitalist system that Chile used, which created so much wealth, but obviously not for everyone. So Chileans were unequal in their wealth. Meanwhile, in other Latin-American countries, people were more (than in Chile) equal in their poverty. Duh.

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 Chilean Congress stated that Allende cracked down on rival/opposition media outlets, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of the press in general and claimed that he used violence and, yes, torture to crack down.

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 one of the most polluted city in the world. Chile has extremely high mortality and sickness rates, beating out many of it’s neighbours.
Santiago is indeed polluted, but not as polluted as I think you remember it. It seems that is was much more polluted in the 90's than now. Also, obviously Chile has more pollution than much of it's neighbors, as it industrialized much more rapidly and effectively than most of its neighbors.

Chile’s economy is still growing, but nonetheless, claiming this is due to some sort of fantastic economic manouvering on the part of Pinochet is ridiculous.
No it's not and you've yet to show how.

Profits from Chile’s industries flow outward into foreign pockets. That sounds like something someone who has no understanding of the benefits of foreign investment would say.

The “Economic Miracle of Chile’ is a myth.(6)
On the contrary.

Some will say that Salvador Allende’s Chile could have been worse.
We've seen what totalitarian marxist regimes look like, the world didn't need another. No thank you.

We have no way to tell, no way to know.
We just have to look at every other nation that adopted a Soviet backed totalitarian marxist government during the cold war. . .

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.
It was an economic miracle and here's what Chile suffers due to Pinochet:

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

Obviously in some aspects, but not in others. Copper, Chile's main resource, remained nationalized

..a policy initiated by Allende. And they were taken from US ownership. Funny that.


Many killed were innocent, true. But many of those 'civilians' were also Allende's cronies or communist groups who were fighting to create a marxist state.


"cronies" of the democratically elected Government. So that makes it ok, I suppose.


So it can be blamed on Allende because under him there was a total economic collapse and hyper inflation

Right but it doesn't matter if Allende was in power "only 3 years" as he caused an economic collapse and hyperinflation

Regaining lost ground from an economic collapse brought on by Allende's marxist economic policies

The economic crisis started in 1966/1967. Allende was elected in 1970.

You also seem to have forgotten that the US worked to deny credit and monetary facilities to Chile under Allende.
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm


What happend in Chile was domestic and the CIA hardly even helped the actual coup.

No, they just accidentally increased aid to the military from under a million USD to 10 Million USD a year, undermined the economy, formented dissent and the like...I mean thats 'hardly helping' at all......

Personally I think Latin Americans are far far too forgiving. If a bomb or three went off under North Americas ass it might have taught them a lesson. The world is not your elites oyster.

Jesus Christ, you guys are arguing about this AGAIN?

You have been on NSG how long?

Repeating arguments on topic is what NSG is all about.

Yes but if you take that sort of approach, it's more difficult to justify murder, torture and disappearances, like TAI does.

You must remember that for TAI, economy is what matters. Human loss? Please. That's nothing.

Economical gain < human death
Economical gain< human disappereances

Those are his equations.

Fucksakes boys, you had this argument about 2 weeks ago or something -_________________________-

You must remember that for TAI, economy is what matters. Human loss? Please. That's nothing.

Economical gain < human death
Economical gain< human disappereances

Those are his equations.

It's the other way around Nanatsu. 2 > 1 and 1 < 2.

In TAI's equation, Economic gain > human death + being vanished.

It's also why I am tempted to have him killed for my economic gain. I mean, he does laud that sort of behavior, so why shouldn't he be on the receiving end too?

It's the other way around Nanatsu. 2 > 1 and 1 < 2.

In TAI's equation, Economic gain > human death + being vanished.

It's also why I am tempted to have him killed for my economic gain.

Thanks for the correction.:tongue:

Tempted to kill TAI for economical gain? LOL!

Thanks for the correction.:tongue:

Tempted to kill TAI for economical gain? LOL!

It's rather simple. His economic actions are inhibiting my economic freedoms, namely the freedom to compete in the market without what I deem unfair competition. Thereby if he dies for the sake of my economic freedom, he should cheer as I have him thrown in the Hudson river while he wears concrete shoes.

Since "Chile" is one of the presumptive topics of this thread, based on the title, and in an interest to not have to go through another TAI-Heikoku rant-fest, complete with everyone piling on TAI, I present War of the Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_pacific)

The War of the Pacific left traumatic scars on all societies involved in the conflict. For Bolivians, the loss of the territory which they refer to as the Litoral (the coast) remains a deeply emotional issue and a practical one, as was particularly evident during the internal natural gas riots of 2003. Popular belief attributes much of the country's problems to its landlocked condition; accordingly, recovering the seacoast is seen as the solution to most of these difficulties. However, the real issue is the fear of being dependent on Chile or Peru. In 1932, this was a contributing factor in the failed Chaco War with Paraguay, over territory controlling access to the Atlantic Ocean through the Paraguay River. In recent decades, all Bolivian Presidents have made it their policy to pressure Chile for sovereign access to the sea. Diplomatic relations with Chile have been severed since 17 March 1978, in spite of considerable commercial ties. Currently, the leading Bolivian newspaper "El Diario" still features at least a weekly editorial on the subject, and the Bolivian people annually celebrate a patriotic "Dia del Mar" (Day of the Sea) to remember the crippling loss.

The question posed is this: Should Chile cede sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean to Bolivia? Or is territory won in war legitimate? Does the length of time elapsed since the war make the territory Chilean de facto as well as de jure?

Is territory won in war legitimate?
Absolutely. Which is why it's the Falklands rather than las islas Malvinas (lolol).

It's rather simple. His economic actions are inhibiting my economic freedoms, namely the freedom to compete in the market without what I deem unfair competition. Thereby if he dies for the sake of my economic freedom, he should cheer as I have him thrown in the Hudson river while he wears concrete shoes.

It's too early in the morning for me to laugh my ass off, NAS.:D

Absolutely. Which is why it's the Falklands rather than las islas Malvinas (lolol).

Did we even take them by force? I thought we bought them from France or something?

Did we even take them by force? I thought we bought them from France or something?

I think Argentina would differ from this, Adu-kun.

I think Argentina would differ from this, Adu-kun.

Yeah well they're dicks, aren't they.

Yeah well they're dicks, aren't they.

According to the rest of Latin America? Yes.:tongue:

Did we even take them by force? I thought we bought them from France or something?

France initially settled the islands in 1764, and the UK followed in 1765. France sold their portion of the islands to Spain in 1766. The UK abandoned them in 1774, during the American Revolution, at which point Spain administered them from Buenos Aires. Spain abandoned them in 1811, and independent Argentina laid claim to them in 1820 and established a settlement. The settlement was destroyed by the United States after the governor of the island siezed American fishing ships. 1833, the UK returned and re-established their prior claim.

France initially settled the islands in 1764, and the UK followed in 1765. France sold their portion of the islands to Spain in 1766. The UK abandoned them in 1774, during the American Revolution, at which point Spain administered them from Buenos Aires. Spain abandoned them in 1811, and independent Argentina laid claim to them in 1820 and established a settlement. The settlement was destroyed by the United States after the governor of the island siezed American fishing ships. 1833, the UK returned and re-established their prior claim.

Ay, Las Malvinas, Las Malvinas...

France initially settled the islands in 1764, and the UK followed in 1765. France sold their portion of the islands to Spain in 1766. The UK abandoned them in 1774, during the American Revolution, at which point Spain administered them from Buenos Aires. Spain abandoned them in 1811, and independent Argentina laid claim to them in 1820 and established a settlement. The settlement was destroyed by the United States after the governor of the island siezed American fishing ships. 1833, the UK returned and re-established their prior claim.

Thankyou very much.

Ay, Las Malvinas, Las Malvinas...

I'm sorry, but it's extremely ridiculous to call them that, or pretend Argentina has any right to claim them. All the people there consider themselves British.

I'm sorry, but it's extremely ridiculous to call them that, or pretend Argentina has any right to claim them. All the people there consider themselves British.

Sorry, but that's they way I know them by. The Falklands to you, Las Malvinas to me.

I'm sorry, but it's extremely ridiculous to call them that, or pretend Argentina has any right to claim them. All the people there consider themselves British.

DON'T YOU DARE!

This mod has already gone through one threadjack tonight and is not going to let anyone start another on the Falklands war. (EDIT: Or the Malvinas war.) Insofar as the (admittedly very broad) topic is stick-to-able, stick to it!

DON'T YOU DARE!

This mod has already gone through one threadjack tonight and is not going to let anyone start another on the Falklands war. Insofar as the (admittedly very broad) topic is stick-to-able, stick to it!

I could squirm it in under dictators, surely? What with Galtieri and such?

I could squirm it in under dictators, surely? What with Galtieri and such?

*edges away before Ardchy whacks her on the head with her mighty, plastic mallet*

DON'T YOU DARE!

This mod has already gone through one threadjack tonight and is not going to let anyone start another on the Falklands war. (EDIT: Or the Malvinas war.) Insofar as the (admittedly very broad) topic is stick-to-able, stick to it!

A threadjack on a threadjack. *Ponders*

DON'T YOU DARE!

This mod has already gone through one threadjack tonight and is not going to let anyone start another on the Falklands war. (EDIT: Or the Malvinas war.) Insofar as the (admittedly very broad) topic is stick-to-able, stick to it!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588352

Happy now?

Sorry, but that's they way I know them by. The Falklands to you, Las Malvinas to me.

One of my old girlfriends was Ecuadorian but had family from Argentina, so she one time mentioned going to the Malvinas islands to see the place where the war occurred...I teased her saying, "What are these "Malvinas" of which you speak? The only Islands I know in that region are the Falklands." she got PISSED
:tongue:

One of my old girlfriends was Ecuadorian but had family from Argentina, so she one time mentioned going to the Malvinas islands to see the place where the war occurred...I teased her saying, "What are these "Malvinas" of which you speak? The only Islands I know in that region are the Falklands." she got PISSED
:tongue:
lol.

Had a similar story one time being somewhere (I think some kind of history class years ago) with a teacher who was either Polish or had some connection to Poland. Well I called the former German (now Polish) city in Poland "Danzig" when it's now called "Gdansk". It wasn't my fault though, because I knew of the city's name from playing Civilization as the Germans . . . it was one of the city names that would come up when building new cities. I was much younger and didn't actually know that it doesn't exist anymore and is quite a sore spot for any Poles or pro-Polish people. :p I did get quite the laugh out of it, though. :tongue:

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

In my defense I also think it's still ok to call Danzig Danzig if you're speaking in German. . . it's written 'Danzig' on German maps I've read, if I recall correctly.

lol.

Had a similar story one time being somewhere (I think some kind of history class years ago) with a teacher who was either Polish or had some connection to Poland. Well I called the former German (now Polish) city in Poland "Danzig" when it's now called "Gdansk". It wasn't my fault though, because I knew of the city's name from playing Civilization as the Germans . . . it was one of the city names that would come up when building new cities. I was much younger and didn't actually know that it doesn't exist anymore and is quite a sore spot for any Poles or pro-Polish people. :p I did get quite the laugh out of it, though. :tongue:

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

In my defense I also think it's still ok to call Danzig Danzig if you're speaking in German. . . it's written 'Danzig' on German maps I've read, if I recall correctly.

hahaha! Don't feel bad, I've had that happen too several times. I got in a shouting match one time with an African history teacher of mine (from Rhodesia) who loathes me now because I absolutely, completely, and totally refuse to refer to that place as anything other than Rhodesia. The day I actually acknowledge Rhodesia as its rebel name, "Zimbabwe", will be a cold day in hell. To me its insulting because I had family who fought in that war.

Another funny more along your story line: I didn't realize that Kaliningrad and Konigsberg were the same thing, so I tried arguing with a teacher one time that my Great Grandfather was not from Kaliningrad, but from Konigsberg. I felt like such an idiot :$ lol

hahaha! Don't feel bad, I've had that happen too several times. I got in a shouting match one time with an African history teacher of mine (from Rhodesia) who loathes me now because I absolutely, completely, and totally refuse to refer to that place as anything other than Rhodesia. The day I actually acknowledge Rhodesia as its rebel name, "Zimbabwe", will be a cold day in hell. To me its insulting because I had family who fought in that war.

Are you happy with calling Zambia Zambia then?

Are you happy with calling Zambia Zambia then?

Believe it or not, yes. Its the only one of those countrys that I actually accept the change in (other than Mozambique and Angola, but thats because they were Portugese so I have no qualm with them...other than being communists).

I still call Present-day Namibia South-West Africa for example.

Believe it or not, yes. Its the only one of those countrys that I actually accept the change

Well, it used to be part of Rhodesia.

I still call Present-day Namibia South-West Africa for example.

You need to keep up with the times.

Believe it or not, yes. Its the only one of those countrys that I actually accept the change in (other than Mozambique and Angola, but thats because they were Portugese so I have no qualm with them...other than being communists).

I still call Present-day Namibia South-West Africa for example.

Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge the name that the natives of these particular regions have given to their nations? Why do you disrespect them?

Well, it used to be part of Rhodesia.



You need to keep up with the times.


It was Northern Rhodesia, but the change occured in a different manner than the one in the other countries did. It was the only non-hyper violent change, so I can live with it. My Dad still calls it Northern Rhodesia, I don't. As for "keeping up with that times", its not that I'm backwards, I just don't view their governments as being legitimate, considering how evil they are. Mugabe, Mandela, all of those bastards are quite evil. The biggest mistake the South African government made, in my opinion, was releasing Mandela from prison and not shooting him.

Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge the name that the natives of these particular regions have given to their nations? Why do you disrespect them?


Because my family is White South African/Rhodesian, and fought against those communist bastards. I feel that calling them by any other name is disrespectful to my family in similar fashion as you say its disrespectful to them.

. As for "keeping up with that times", its not that I'm backwards, I just don't view their governments as being legitimate, considering how evil they are. Mugabe, Mandela, all of those bastards are quite evil. The biggest mistake the South African government made, in my opinion, was releasing Mandela from prison and not shooting him.

Completly unlike the racist states run by a colonialist Junta that they replaced.....

Completly unlike the racist states run by a colonialist Junta that they replaced.....

Prime Minister Smith was anything but a Junta. I greatly admire him.

Prime Minister Smith was anything but a Junta. I greatly admire him.

As the song goes...

'I was reading in New Zealand about Ian Smith
I was thinking they were lucky
to be rid of that shit.'

Racist regimes built on division, lies and exploitation.

Prime Minister Smith was anything but a Junta. I greatly admire him.

He didn't want blacks to be able to vote in their own country. Is that a thing to admire?

As the song goes...

'I was reading in New Zealand about Ian Smith
I was thinking they were lucky
to be rid of that shit.'

Racist regimes built on division, lies and exploitation.


"...and the last word in Rhodesian is Ian!" I have a song too! :tongue:

Sorry...off topic but I thought I'd amuse you a bit...anyway Smith's regime wasn't that racist. Apartheid there was appropriate because the Africans weren't ready to handle democracy, they PROVED that in 1979 by electing Canaan Banana and subsequently Robert Mugabe. Or in South Africa for that matter: choosing Nelson Mandela and Mbeki...who managed to take one of the wealthiest nations in Africa and ruin it. And I wonder how Mugabe feels knowing that he took the wealthiest African nation and turned it into the 2nd poorest country in the world, only behind Moldava :rolleyes:

One of my old girlfriends was Ecuadorian but had family from Argentina, so she one time mentioned going to the Malvinas islands to see the place where the war occurred...I teased her saying, "What are these "Malvinas" of which you speak? The only Islands I know in that region are the Falklands." she got PISSED
:tongue:

I'm not getting pissed at that. It's just that that's the name I know them by.:wink:

He didn't want blacks to be able to vote in their own country. Is that a thing to admire?

He allowed them to vote. Blacks had their own parliament in Rhodesia, it just wasn't as powerful as the White parliament. I think it was called "B-list" or something to that effect.

I'm not getting pissed at that. It's just that that's the name I know them by.:wink:

Never said you were! I just thought it was a funny story :tongue:

Sorry...off topic but I thought I'd amuse you a bit...anyway Smith's regime wasn't that racist.

Yes it was. Not allowing a racial group to vote = racist.

Apartheid there was appropriate

Apartheid is never appropriate.

because the Africans weren't ready to handle democracy, they PROVED that in 1979 by electing Canaan Banana and subsequently Robert Mugabe.

It doesn't matter what you think, they elected who they thought would serve their interests the best.

He allowed them to vote. Blacks had their own parliament in Rhodesia, it just wasn't as powerful as the White parliament. I think it was called "B-list" or something to that effect.

You don't see the inherent racism in that?

Never said you were! I just thought it was a funny story :tongue:

Boogie Boogie! I know Wanderjar. :wink:
I think we should just take this discussion to the Falklands's thread. I fear a mod may go berserk on us.

You don't see the inherent racism in that?


I suppose I do, I simply don't care.

It doesn't matter what you think, they elected who they thought would serve their interests the best.


And oh how wrong they were.

I suppose I do, I simply don't care.

Then I suspect you can appreciate the irony of what Mugabe's Zimbabwe has done to whites.

Boogie Boogie! I know Wanderjar. :wink:
I think we should just take this discussion to the Falklands's thread. I fear a mod may go berserk on us.

So my thread's what then, the reject spam thread? :)

So my thread's what then, the reject spam thread? :)

I fear it is so.:tongue:

Then I suspect you can appreciate the irony of what Mugabe's Zimbabwe has done to whites.

Quite, and I'm furious about it.

Quite, and I'm furious about it.

Hard for you to have any sort of righteous fury when you've just admitted that you don't care about racism against other people. Why should anyone give a crap about the racism visited upon you?

"...and the last word in Rhodesian is Ian!" I have a song too! :tongue:

Sorry...off topic but I thought I'd amuse you a bit...anyway Smith's regime wasn't that racist.
:

Sort of 'Racist lite'. Thats ok then obviously.


Apartheid there was appropriate because the Africans weren't ready to handle democracy, they PROVED that in 1979 by electing Canaan Banana and subsequently Robert Mugabe.
:

Robert Mugabe was one of the African leaders most respected in Europe. Very few in 1979/80 had any idea of what he was capable of, or how far he'd degenerate.


Or in South Africa for that matter: choosing Nelson Mandela and Mbeki...who managed to take one of the wealthiest nations in Africa and ruin it.

Overstating things somewhat.

...

And the Chilean military (not American military, not American CIA) was the one who carried out the will of Congress and removed Allende. So what's the problem?
....

Oh, TAI, you do realise that it was illegal, according to the Chilean Constitution, for the military to enforce the will of congress, don't you?

....That was the issue that made people largely not give a shit when Allende died during the coup. Because they were starving due to his marxist economic policies. They had no money, no food. ....

This is simply a lie or profound ignorance. Provide a source, pleasae.

The only thing I can say with economic freedom is, it reduces the power of the state, other civilian bodies have more control over important things, like allocation of resources. Thus the dictatorship is weakened. However, Pinochet banned unions IIRC, which is a vital element of economic freedom that threatens the power of the state in the first place.

Exactly. The theory that economic freedom automatically leads to more civilian freedom gets proven wrong the moment the state starts executing all civilians who try and organise some other economic model.

...that Allende was controlling the press...

I see that you are ignorant of El Mercurio's support for Pinochet during the Allende years, or how Pinochet shut down every newspaper except the two that supported him. Let me remedythat:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24794236_ITM

...[/QUOTE]

And you should really stop using that non-binding resolution form the rest of Allende's coalition in Congress. It didn't get the two-thrids majority to be binding, and was shown to be unconstitutional.

Sort of 'Racist lite'. Thats ok then obviously.



Robert Mugabe was one of the African leaders most respected in Europe. Very few in 1979/80 had any idea of what he was capable of, or how far he'd degenerate.



Overstating things somewhat.


Funny how a genocidal madman can become respected. A man who goes around the Bush ordering the executions of white women and children on farms...yeah that gives him tons of credibility. Look if he was Mohatma Ghandi I'd respect him too. I don't because of the nature of his means of revolution. He was evil, anyone who didn't know what he was going to do is a fucking fool.

And hows that overstating things? The economy in those countries is RUINED.

And hows that overstating things? The economy in those countries is RUINED.

Because it was so good under Smith.

Because it was so good under Smith.


It was...they had the best economy in Africa and a top tier world economy...that is until the US put economic sanctions on them and they STILL were a success. It only got bad in about 1974-1978 when the war really started to tip in favour of the ZANU.

Jesus Christ, you guys are arguing about this AGAIN?

I will speak on this until his views are seen for the dangerous, idiotic lie they are.

Funny how a genocidal madman can become respected. A man who goes around the Bush ordering the executions of white women and children on farms...
.

Who, when etc......If it was during Smiths regime, you'll have scant sympathy from me.


yeah that (......)? is RUINED.

But even if the place had vanished of the face of the earth, Smith was still a piece of shit, and Apartheid South Africa a disgusting vile regime that should have been and was expunged. White South Africans are rather lucky that their non-white compatriots are more forgiving than most.

Ah, Chile, Allende, Pinochet and the Junta: A sad tale that illustrates and encapsulates the complexities and amoralities of the Cold War.

My thoughts on the matter?

Allende was an ideologue, who was doing a poor job, and alienating key power players in Chilean society, while cozying up to Castro and the USSR. (silly and dumb) He had alienated the military and several power players so thoroughly, that opposition to his removal was greeted with, essentially, a shrug. Pinochet was a brutal thug, a criminal who thought he looked stylish in a uniform and women's sunglasses. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Pinochet_portrait_bw.jpeg) The US underwrote the coup, although, likely did not initiate it. The US should have pushed on the Junta when they got aggressive. They didn't, and Kissinger should probably have been hauled before a court for his role.

Counterfactuals be damned, Pinochet was pretty damn bad, although he did lay the groundwork that would eventually prove to be key in a modern democratic and economically potent Chile.

Further, the administration at the time, Nixon's, was the most amoral of the Cold War Presidencies, willing to sink to any low to pull of whatever they felt like they wanted to do. Eventually, this attitude was what forced him out of office, but at the time, he was able to carry this out as he pleased.

Ah, Chile, Allende, Pinochet and the Junta: A sad tale that illustrates and encapsulates the complexities and amoralities of the Cold War.

.....

Pinochert and Allende had nothing to do with the Cold War.

The only way it possibly relates to the Cold War is that the US apologists use it as an excuse for meddling in Latin American sovereignty.

To put it another way, it had as much to do with the Cold War as the invasion of Iraq had to do with Al-Qaeda.

Pinochet may have looked stylish, Andaluciae, but Allende had a bad-ass moustache.

Pinochert and Allende had nothing to do with the Cold War.

The only way it possibly relates to the Cold War is that the US apologists use it as an excuse for meddling in Latin American sovereignty.

To put it another way, it had as much to do with the Cold War as the invasion of Iraq had to do with Al-Qaeda.

Bzzt. Incomplete and incorrect answer, you missed the 64,000 dollar question.

I said that US involvement had everything to do with the Cold War, and should have said Cold War perceptions. Nixon was, by nature, paranoid, obsessed that the media, the Russians, Congress, the Vietnamese and god knows who else were out to get him and his administration. By this point in time, the Nixon Administration, and especially Kissinger, besieged at home by Watergate, felt surrounded and isolated, and identified Allende with Soviet intelligence and Cuban influence. This was not entirely an inaccurate perception. But the involvement was less so than they thought, and decidedly did not warrant the myriad actions they undertook.

But, as I said, what brought Allende down was what he had done at home. He had, quite unwisely, alienated key powerholders in society over the three years he was in office. He sewed the seeds of his own downfall, even if the crop that was reaped was unjust.

But, hey, I can't expect an ideologue to see a middle ground, that would be too complex. Latin American ideologues have been using the brutality and injustice of Pinochet's regime to whitewash Allende's regime of its incompetence, uncompromising nature and ignorance of domestic power balances, as well as foreign perceptions.

Not to mention the scandals that were abounded.

Pinochert and Allende had nothing to do with the Cold War.

Prove it.

I said that US involvement had everything to do with the Cold War, and should have said Cold War perceptions.

That would be closer to the truth.

Nixon was, by nature, paranoid, obsessed that the media, the Russians, Congress, the Vietnamese and god knows who else were out to get him and his administration. By this point in time, the Nixon Administration, and especially Kissinger, besieged at home by Watergate, felt surrounded and isolated, and identified Allende with Soviet intelligence and Cuban influence. This was not entirely an inaccurate perception. But the involvement was less so than they thought, and decidedly did not warrant the myriad actions they undertook.

I am not so sure that your portrayal of the situation is accurate. While Nixon and his cronies may have assumed Soviet involvement out of ignorance, it is also entirely possible that they were aware of the relative lack of appareciable Soviet influence and simply offered Soviet involvement as a smokescreen. The question would be 'what information did Nixon and Kissinger have when they decided to act against Allende?

But, as I said, what brought Allende down was what he had done at home. He had, quite unwisely, alienated key powerholders in society over the three years he was in office. He sewed the seeds of his own downfall, even if the crop that was reaped was unjust.

I think this is an incomplete picture of the situation. For example, many people blame Allende's supposed misandling of the economy as part of the reason for the coup, while neglecting to mention the fact that the US government at the time was basically running an embargo on Chile and actively undermining the Chilean economy. So, even if he was partly responsible for his downfall, that does not nullify the obvious and active efforts of foreign powers to ensure his demise.

But, hey, I can't expect an ideologue to see a middle ground, that would be too complex. Latin American ideologues have been using the brutality and injustice of Pinochet's regime to whitewash Allende's regime of its incompetence, uncompromising nature and ignorance of domestic power balances, as well as foreign perceptions.

:rolleyes:

Prove it.

While it is possible to prove a negative, in this case it would be far easier to provide evidence for the positive. In other words, it would be a lot easier to find evidence for this apparent Soviet involvement (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1) than it would be to find evidence of an absence thereof.

In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. Allende also mentioned to Kuznetsov his desire to acquire “one or two icons” for his private art collection. He was presented with two icons as a gift.

On December 7, in a memorandum to the Politburo, the KGB proposed giving Allende another $60,000 for what was termed “his work with [ie, bribery of] political party leaders, military commanders and parliamentarians”.

Let us compare this support ($90,000 and two icons) with CIA support for the coup:

According to this unclassified CIA document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/01-12.htm), the CIA spent 6.5 million or so in the months leading up to the coup.

Please note that this is only discussing financial aid before the coup and does not take into account the money paid to Pinochet after September 11th.

I have an idea.

Why doesn't someone show that the Soviets were actually involved on some sort of substantive level?

I'm not talking about Soviet support (or lack thereof) for Allende. You said that Allende and Pinochet had "nothing to do with" the Cold War. That is what I'm asking you to prove. Personally, I don't give a damn if they supported Allende or not. Intervening in Chile in any way, shape, or form, was inexcusable for any reason.

I have an idea.

Why doesn't someone show that the Soviets were actually involved on some sort of substantive level?

They weren't. They may have offered very minor, half-hearted support, but there was no substantial Soviet role.

They weren't. They may have offered very minor, half-hearted support, but there was no substantial Soviet role.

Right, which is why it had nothing to do with the Cold War, as Chile was not a proxy for either side.

Right, which is why it had nothing to do with the Cold War, as Chile was not a proxy for either side.

But the U.S. (incorrectly) feared that Chile was a Soviet and/or Cuban proxy.

Right, which is why it had nothing to do with the Cold War, as Chile was not a proxy for either side.

It had everything to do with the Cold War, as the Nixon administration perceived Allende as being associated with the Soviets, and later, that the coup was sold to the Nixon administration as a maneuver against Soviet and Cuban expansionist activity. Information received by the US was imperfect, and their rationality was severely bounded by events occurring domestically and internationally. By and large this was the administrations goal in Chile--even if Cuban and Soviet involvement were actually limited.

But the U.S. (incorrectly) feared that Chile was a Soviet and/or Cuban proxy.

While the US (the citizenry) may have believed that, I don't think the US government at the time actually did believe that. But if you have some evidence that might change my mind, I'll be happy to look at it.

While the US (the citizenry) may have believed that, I don't think the US government at the time actually did believe that. But if you have some evidence that might change my mind, I'll be happy to look at it.

I don't think the U.S. citizenry gave Chile much consideration at the time. There were far bigger attention-grabbing issues, both at home and abroad. I don't have any evidence that the U.S. government did or didn't believe that, but I assume that they did believe it. Why else would they want to overthrow Allende?

I don't think the U.S. citizenry gave Chile much consideration at the time. There were far bigger attention-grabbing issues, both at home and abroad. I don't have any evidence that the U.S. government did or didn't believe that, but I assume that they did believe it. Why else would they want to overthrow Allende?

You mean, other than profit?

You mean, other than profit?

Profit from what?

You mean, other than profit?


Phase 1.) Topple Allende
Phase 2.) ???
Phase 3.) Profit

Profit from what?

From controlling the economy, ensuring that you can pay substandard wages because trade unions are illegal, ensuring that the US governemnt can dictate the price it pays for copper instead of Chile, selling the natural resources and moving the profits out of the country, etc.

From controlling the economy, ensuring that you can pay substandard wages because trade unions are illegal, ensuring that the US governemnt can dictate the price it pays for copper instead of Chile, selling the natural resources and moving the profits out of the country, etc.

Why? There were plenty of other places we could do that.

(Note: I'm not agreeing/disagreeing, at least entirely. I'm playing Devil's advocate.)

Why? There were plenty of other places we could do that.

(Note: I'm not agreeing/disagreeing, at least entirely. I'm playing Devil's advocate.)

And the US government at the time probably did it, if it was feasible. Welcome to realpolitik.

And the US government at the time probably did it, if it was feasible. Welcome to realpolitik.

Realpolitik requires rational actors, though. In the case of the Nixon administration by 1973, rationality had largely flown out of the window, and had been replaced with an overwhelming sense of paranoia, which has been supremely well documented. All decisions made by the administration, especially by this point in time, have be viewed through a non-rational lens.

I have an idea.

Why doesn't someone show that the Soviets were actually involved on some sort of substantive level?

They weren't. They may have offered very minor, half-hearted support, but there was no substantial Soviet role.


I'm sorry but I can't allow Gift of God to lie anymore and claim that the Soviets weren't involved. This is from his own source that he used but left out a major, major detail when showing the financial corruption of Allende:

Regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained not by the Soviet Ambassador but 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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

That is a big fucking deal and if that doesn't show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile, well nothing, it does show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile.

I'm sorry but I can't allow Gift of God to lie anymore and claim that the Soviets weren't involved. This is from his own source that he used but left out a major, major detail when showing the financial corruption of Allende:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

That is a big fucking deal and if that doesn't show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile, well nothing, it does show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile.

It shows support. Not intervention. There is a difference.

It shows support. Not intervention. There is a difference.
Even if that were true, then Ledgersia and Gift of God would already be, at best incorrect and at worst lying by stating that there was no substansive Soviet involvent. Direct KGB influence, which Allende allowed, on Chilean government policy equals support and in my opinion, intervention, KGB intervention. Also, reorganizing Chilean intelligence services to be in line with the KGB is too.

Because the KGB telling Allende what to do so is what? Not KGB intervention? This is the kind of intervention that spy/intelligence agencies do. You don't have to invade to intervene. Hell, Soviet officials intervened in a shit load of Eastern Block countries without actually physically invading them, although they did do that to some as well.

Even if that were true, then Ledgersia and Gift of God would already be, at best incorrect and at worst lying by stating that there was no substansive Soviet involvent. Direct KGB influence, which Allende allowed, on Chilean government policy equals support and in my opinion, intervention, KGB intervention. Also, reorganizing Chilean intelligence services to be in line with the KGB is also, what because of the KGB telling Allende to do so is what? Not KGB intervention? This is the kind of intervention that spy/intelligence agencies do. You don't have to invade to intervene. Hell, Soviet officials intervened in a shit load of Eastern Block countries without actually physically invading them, although they did do that to some as well.

And now is the part in which you try and make an argument that Soviet intervention in support of an elected leader that had tortured, killed or disappeared no people is somehow worse than American intervention in support of a coup that set in place a leader that tortured, disappeared and killed dissidents.

Even if that were true, then Ledgersia and Gift of God would already be, at best incorrect and at worst lying by stating that there was no substansive Soviet involvent.

Did you read your own source?


The mounting evidence of chronic economic mismanagement made Moscow reluctant to provide large-scale support.

Anxious to do what it could to prevent the defeat of the Allende regime, the KGB gave an exaggerated impression of its ability to influence Chilean politics.

Did you read your own source?

Apparently nooo-ooot!

Did you read your own source?
That's two seperate parts. First it shows the influence it did have (the part I quoted), which Vasili Mitrokhin is explaining, then he said the KGB later gave an exaggerated reports of how much influence it had. However, that does not deny the fact that they had substantial influence in the first place. . . obviously.

Also, just look at what it says in the very beginning of the source:

BY FAR the most important of the KGB's contacts in South America was Salvador Allende Gossens (codenamed Leader by the KGB), whose election as President of Chile in 1970 was hailed as “a revolutionary blow to the imperialist system in Latin America

Soviet intervention in support of an elected leader
Excellent, so you agree with me that there was indeed Soviet intervention in Chile under Allende. Thank you for seeing eye to eye with me. :)

[Allende] that had tortured, killed or disappeared no people
That's funny because here it says Allende used violence and torture:

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy

Excellent, so you agree with me that there was indeed Soviet intervention in Chile under Allende. Thank you for seeing eye to eye with me. :)

I pointed out that it was according to YOU. I would never stoop low enough to see eye-to-eye with you.

That's funny because here it says Allende used violence and torture:

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy

Compared to Pinochet, pretty mild. "Arrest" and "tolerate", as opposed to "Disappearing" and "active policy".

Besides, what do YOU care? You SUPPORT torture of dissidents to advance the cause of your favored economical system.

I pointed out that it was according to YOU. I would never stoop low enough to see eye-to-eye with you.
That's nooooot whaaaat it looooked liiiike from here ;)


Compared to Pinochet, pretty mild.
"Dictatorships are dictatorships." "Torture is torture." Funny how you can just totally blow off your morals when it doesn't fit your arguement. If you really cared so much about torture, you wouldn't blow it off with "compared to X, pretty mild" simply because you were proven wrong in that Allende did use torture and violence.

"Dictatorships are dictatorships." "Torture is torture." Funny how you can just totally blow off your morals when it doesn't fit your arguement. If you really cared so much about torture, you wouldn't blow it off with "compared to X, pretty mild" simply because you were proven wrong in that Allende did use torture and violence.

Erm...isnt that more or less exactly what you are doing though?

"Oh, sure, Pinochet was a brutal murderer and a tyrant, but at least he was capitalist, so its ok."

:rolleyes:

The CIA's role in Chile has been overstated, but to the extent they helped escort Allende to that part of the Ninth Circle of Hell reserved for those who attempt to impose socialist dictatorships on their countries, I can only say:

:hail: "Well done!"

That's nooooot whaaaat it looooked liiiike from here ;)



"Dictatorships are dictatorships." "Torture is torture." Funny how you can just totally blow off your morals when it doesn't fit your arguement. If you really cared so much about torture, you wouldn't blow it off with "compared to X, pretty mild" simply because you were proven wrong in that Allende did use torture and violence.

1- That your view is skewed, I know.

2- You are hardly the one to be lecturing me on morals.

Erm...isnt that more or less exactly what you are doing though?

"Oh, sure, Pinochet was a brutal murderer and a tyrant, but at least he was capitalist, so its ok."

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing, KoL-kun. It's all about the economy, but TAI already established that. Now, it's time to justify the unjustifiable.

:rolleyes:

The CIA's role in Chile has been overstated, but to the extent they helped escort Allende to that part of the Ninth Circle of Hell reserved for those who attempt to impose socialist dictatorships on their countries, I can only say:

:hail: "Well done!"

Pinochet deserves to be in much worse a place for what he did. And so does the CIA.

The CIA's role in Chile has been overstated,

All evidence points to the contrary, but since when have you ever payed attention to evidnece? You just repeat whatever some oxycodone addicted fool tells you to think.

ut to the extent they helped escort Allende to that part of the Ninth Circle of Hell reserved for those who attempt to impose socialist dictatorships on their countries, I can only say:

:hail: "Well done!"

Shhh. Grown ups are talking. Shouldnt you be off planning for secession or something?

Pinochet deserves to be in much worse a place for what he did. And so does the CIA.

Agreed, H2.

Also, TAI, how was Goulart of Brazil a threat to the United States?

2- You are hardly the one to be lecturing me on morals.
I didn't claim to be fighting a moral crusade against "torture" . . . you did claiming how the Pinochet regime was wrong in torturing (which it was) and then stating, incorrectly, that Allende's regime didn't torture. That was my point.
Erm...isnt that more or less exactly what you are doing though?
The difference is that Heikoku was claiming Pinochet was bad because he tortured and then saying that Allende wasn't bad because he didn't torture, which he did. I never claimed any kind of moral crusade on the torture issue as backing for Pinochet (obviously). He did some fucked up things, and I do not support torture as a practice. I don't even support waterboarding. But just because you don't support waterboarding, as an example, doesn't mean you oppose the entire Bush government because of that. You can still cite the good effects of the Bush government, like the lack of attack on American soil in the past 7 years or so.

I don't want to turn this into a Bush thread, it was just an analogy. My point was you can still support the coup against Allende, because he was a marxist shit head and was forming a totalitarian state with KGB backing, and say that Chile benefited from the economic policies Pinochet gave it, without saying "I like torture."

IThe difference is that Heikoku was claiming Pinochet was bad because he tortured and then saying that Allende wasn't bad because he didn't torture, which he did.


Ive always been under the impression that H2's problem with Pinochet was that it was a coup.

At least, thats my issue.

Ive always been under the impression that H2's problem with Pinochet was that it was a coup.

It is. Besides, the fact remains that Pinochet killed much more than Allende.

Ive always been under the impression that H2's problem with Pinochet was that it was a coup.

At least, thats my issue.

Well I was pointing directly to the post below. If he wants to use torture as his criteria (which he has) for even part of his opposition to Pinochet, he cannot a) lie and state that Allende didn't use it and b) deny that Allende was bad too, since he used torture.

And now is the part in which you try and make an argument that Soviet intervention in support of an elected leader [Allende] that had tortured, killed or disappeared no people is somehow worse than American intervention in support of a coup that set in place a leader that tortured, disappeared and killed dissidents.

It is. Besides, the fact remains that Pinochet killed much more than Allende.

And this is the crux of the matter. Allende was bad, but Pinochet was worse. I just don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. Economy be damned.

Ive always been under the impression that H2's problem with Pinochet was that it was a coup.

At least, thats my issue.

Heikoku also refuses to understand that the coup was caused by domestic issues, even though this has been proven, and then supported by the CIA. He thinks the CIA created the coup and toppled Chile's government, that's his fundamental error.

What about Goulart?

even though this has been proven

Not really...

What about Goulart?

TAI won't answer you, Ledgersia-sama. He doesn't know. His claims are empty.

Not really...
Well I have showed this time and time again, though I do understand I am quite biased. However, as I know you're a generally good guy, I'd really ask you to, in all seriousness, read the quotes below.

Less biased posters like Andalucia and Neu Leonstein (who aren't supporters of Pinochet at all) also showed how the coup was home-grown and a domestic issue, and at times better than I have shown, I'll admit.

From Andaluciae in:

Allende was an ideologue, who was doing a poor job, and alienating key power players in Chilean society, while cozying up to Castro and the USSR. (silly and dumb) He had alienated the military and several power players so thoroughly, that opposition to his removal was greeted with, essentially, a shrug.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649046&postcount=139

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649180&postcount=142

From Neu Leonstein:

For the military to coup its own nation, it doesn't really need the help of a foreign power. So both the motive and the ability to do it were there without the CIA. That's not excusing what the Nixon administration did, but I feel that people too often fail to realise that this was first and foremost a domestic Chilean problem. The CIA didn't make the coup happen, and Allende would not have finished his term without them.

So that's where I stand on the issue. I think Allende was an idiot, and his policies destroyed the country. Had they continued, I think a Zimbabwe-style situation would have been inevitable. I also think his politics were closer to the German Democratic Republic than the utopia some of his supporters like to imagine. Had he ever managed to get the popular majority needed to implement his revolutionary plebiscite, I think that's where things would have headed. Grand ideologues and democracy just aren't consistent friends.

I am not unhappy that the military intervened to remove his coalition from power. But what happens afterwards was, as I said, not acceptable in any way, shape or form. The reason I get involved in discussions like these is because I'm sick of this oversimplified story of the popular hero Allende on the way to socialist utopia being crushed by the CIA.




http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234624&postcount=385

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227535&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14224673&postcount=362

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14211757&postcount=274

What about Goulart?
For the time being, I'd like to keep the focus on this, until I prove my point. You are welcome to start another thread on him if you'd like, though.

You'll have to understand, I don't want to be seen as coping out, but I'm defending an unpopular position almost by myself . . . which takes alot of typing. I have like 399483943 posters all coming down on my opinion, and I have to repell their arguments. Thus, I hope you'll understand if I don't want yet another topic to defend in this same thread at this moment.

Well I have showed this time and time again, though I do understand I am quite biased. However, as I know you're a generally good guy, I'd really ask you to, in all seriousness, read the quotes below.

Less biased posters like Andalucia and Neu Leonstein (who aren't supporters of Pinochet at all) also showed how the coup was home-grown and a domestic issue, and at times better than I have shown, I'll admit.

From Andaluciae in:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649046&postcount=139

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649180&postcount=142

From Neu Leonstein:








http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234624&postcount=385

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227535&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14224673&postcount=362

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14211757&postcount=274

It's so easy to just give us posts from other NSGers. Why don't you give us your take, as erroneous as it may be, and not Andaluciae's or Neu-Leonstein's. That's what we've been asking for, TAI.

It's so easy to just give us posts from other NSGers. Why don't you give us your take, as erroneous as it may be, and not Andaluciae's or Neu-Leonstein's. That's what we've been asking for, TAI.
:rolleyes:

Because I already have, but it was seen as biased and nobody liked to hear it from me, so I'm showing the same explanation, but from less biased sources, sources who also claim to oppose Pinochet.

That is a legit thing to do. Do not say I haven't given my opinion on this already. That's what about half of this thread is.

And anyway, that doesn't make what Neu Leonstein and Andaluciae said wrong. Is what they stated in those quotes above incorrect?

For the time being, I'd like to keep the focus on this, until I prove my point. You are welcome to start another thread on him if you'd like, though.

That's fine, take your time.

You'll have to understand, I don't want to be seen as coping out, but I'm defending an unpopular position almost by myself . . . which takes alot of typing. I have like 399483943 posters all coming down on my opinion, and I have to repell their arguments. Thus, I hope you'll understand if I don't want yet another topic to defend in this same thread at this moment.

No worries.

Well I have showed this time and time again, though I do understand I am quite biased. However, as I know you're a generally good guy, I'd really ask you to, in all seriousness, read the quotes below.

Less biased posters like Andalucia and Neu Leonstein (who aren't supporters of Pinochet at all) also showed how the coup was home-grown and a domestic issue, and at times better than I have shown, I'll admit.

From Andaluciae in:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649046&postcount=139

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649180&postcount=142

From Neu Leonstein:








http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234624&postcount=385

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227535&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14224673&postcount=362

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14211757&postcount=274

Here is the thing though. I dont see a source in any of their posts:p


And since any CIA involvement is likely Classified, Id imagine evidence either way would be hard to come by.

And since any CIA involvement is likely Classified, Id imagine evidence either way would be hard to come by.

^ This.

Here is the thing though. I dont see a source in any of their posts:p


And since any CIA involvement is likely Classified, Id imagine evidence either way would be hard to come by.

Actually, it isn't classified. Anymore at least.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch06-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-01.htm

While the documentation provides some indication of why they wanted Allende out (they focused on the fact that he was a "Marxist"), it's nothing very specific for most of the documentation. But, it provides a fairly clear early chain of commands back and forth--especially with the second covert track.

The last one does give some insight, including a discussion of Chilean ties to Cuba in the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as the potential that Chile might provide the Cuban secret service with classified IADB documentation.

Page six then begins to It then begins to talk about more long term concerns, including those pertaining to closer coordination with the USSR and Cuba.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-06.htm

Seems to have been something of a concern to the US intelligence services, at the least.

Largely, though, the chain of events that led to Allende's removal from power was a series of domestic alterations. These documents date from 1970, well before the putsch, the impetus for the coup appears to be domestic--especially if the US tried (and failed) to organize a coup at some earlier points in time.

Actually, it isn't classified. Anymore at least.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch06-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-01.htm

While the documentation provides some indication of why they wanted Allende out (they focused on the fact that he was a "Marxist"), it's nothing very specific for most of the documentation. But, it provides a fairly clear early chain of commands back and forth--especially with the second covert track.

The last one does give some insight, including a discussion of Chilean ties to Cuba in the OAS and the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as the potential that Chile might provide the Cuban secret service with classified IADB documentation.

Page six then begins to It then begins to talk about more long term concerns, including those pertaining to closer coordination with the USSR and Cuba.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-06.htm

Seems to have been something of a concern to the US intelligence services, at the least.

Largely, though, the chain of events that led to Allende's removal from power was a series of domestic alterations. These documents date from 1970, well before the putsch, the impetus for the coup appears to be domestic--especially if the US tried (and failed) to organize a coup at some earlier points in time.


As far as I read the sources, the US was just as 'involved' in the coup as the KGB was 'involved' with Allende.

As far as I read the sources, the US was just as 'involved' in the coup as the KGB was 'involved' with Allende.
But nobody is claiming the KGB caused Allende to come to power. He was corrupt and was paid off by them and let them apply influence over governmental policy and brought the KGB into things, but the Soviets didn't cause Allende to come to power.

The CIA was operating in Chile, they didn't want Allende to come to power and they tried to get him out, but they didn't end up causing the coup which was domestic.

That's the difference. Both were there, CIA and KGB, involved...except the CIA was involved in resisting Allende where as the KGB was involved in bringing Soviet influence to Chile and bringing Chile in line under Moscow . . .but neither caused those things (Allende coming to power nor Pinochet creating a coup) to exist.

And that is what people don't understand. There is a difference between favoring or even supporting a coup and CAUSING a coup. A big difference. One is more...jumping on the band wagon while the other is creating the bandwagon.

Also, I know it's Wiki but:

There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet's successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year. The U.S. did provide material support to the military regime after the coup, although it criticized them in public. A document released by the CIA in 2000 titled "CIA Activities in Chile" revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.

And yes, it matters. It's about whether or not the coup was created by the Americans or home-grown.

As far as I read the sources, the US was just as 'involved' in the coup as the KGB was 'involved' with Allende.

GoG said that it wasn't a Cold War issue, I just thought I'd use this as an opportunity to bring it up. The documentation proves that, from the US point of view it was.

From the Chilean viewpoint, it was definitely more a domestic issue.

GoG said that it wasn't a Cold War issue, I just thought I'd use this as an opportunity to bring it up. The documentation proves that, from the US point of view it was.

From the Chilean viewpoint, it was definitely more a domestic issue.

I appreciate you making an apperance and showing the sources. Im still reading over them. A lot of text there. Combine that with typing a paper and we have a recipe for me not getting much done:p

I appreciate you making an apperance and showing the sources. Im still reading over them. A lot of text there. Combine that with typing a paper and we have a recipe for me not getting much done:p

I strongly encourage a course of action that ignores the paper and embraces the documentation.

I delayed progress at work today by introducing thoughts of the beach into my coworker's brains :) I'm quite willing and capable to help out with that.

These declassified CIA documents from the "buccaneer days" are utterly fascinating, especially to those of us with an interest in the national security community.

GoG said that it wasn't a Cold War issue, I just thought I'd use this as an opportunity to bring it up. The documentation proves that, from the US point of view it was.
Ah, that too. I had forgotten about that. Of course you're right, but I'd like to add to that how this was a Cold War issue from the Soviet side as well.

From the Soviet point, aside from this:

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.

There is also this:

According to General Nikolai Leonov, former Sub-Director KGB, the Soviet Union supported Allende's regime economically, politically and militarily. [33]

Economic Support includes over 100 million dollars in credit, three fishing ships (that distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population), factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk. [33]

Political and moral support came mostly through the Communist Party and unions. However, there were some fundamental differences between Allende and Soviet political analysts who believed that some violence – or measures that those analysts "theoretically considered to be just" – should have been used.[33]

Soviet weaponry (tanks and artillery) never got to Chile but was well on its way in the the Northern hemisphere summer of 1973. In addition to weapon, Soviet Union also provided financial support; 100 million dollar in soft loans to buy these weapons. It was the military coup that interrupted the delivery of armaments to Chile.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement

Oh, and also the below from GoG's source earlier. If that's not Cold War politics than . . . well, that is Cold War politics! :p

BY FAR the most important of the KGB's contacts in South America was Salvador Allende Gossens (codenamed Leader by the KGB), whose election as President of Chile in 1970 was hailed as “a revolutionary blow to the imperialist system in Latin America”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece

These declassified CIA documents from the "buccaneer days" are utterly fascinating
Indeed! I'm really big on the geo-politics of the Cold War, and for me reading those docuements is fucking interesting as hell. :p /tool

I strongly encourage a course of action that ignores the paper and embraces the documentation.


Haha, dude, what do you think is winning right now? Im still on NSG arent I?;)

Haha, dude, what do you think is winning right now? Im still on NSG arent I?;)

Haha...glad to help. I did that all the time at the end of last quarter ;)

That's two seperate parts. First it shows the influence it did have (the part I quoted), which Vasili Mitrokhin is explaining, then he said the KGB later gave an exaggerated reports of how much influence it had. However, that does not deny the fact that they had substantial influence in the first place. . . obviously.

Also, just look at what it says in the very beginning of the source:

I don't think anyone is denying that the USSR had some measure of interest in supporting Allende, but whether they actually provided anything of substance has failed to be demonstrated by your source.

Regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained not by the Soviet Ambassador but 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...

Essentially all you have is that the KGB told its people to try and influence Allende and that Allende might have agreed with their ideas (according to the KGB). I don't consider that evidence of substantial Soviet involvement.

Neither does Allende being their most important contact demonstrate that they actually had influence over him. If anything, that suggests that the Soviets were not particularly concerned with South America (certainly not to the degree the USA was).

Anyway, although US support to the coup is in dispute they certainly supported the Pinochet regime. Note that in one year the US provided $323 million to Pinochet (yes, it's wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Foreign_aid)), as opposed to Soviet funds to Allende which was somewhere in the realm of $30,000 according to your own source. I think it should be clear who is more guilty of meddling in other nations' affairs here.

Anyway, although US support to the coup is in dispute they certainly supported the Pinochet regime. Note that in one year the US provided $323 million to Pinochet (yes, it's wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Foreign_aid)), as opposed to Soviet funds to Pinochet which was somewhere in the realm of $30,000 according to your own source. I think it should be clear who is more guilty of meddling in other nations' affairs here.

Allende, surely?

That's funny because here it says Allende used violence and torture:

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy


Thats a statement written by to justify a coup, not historical fact from a third party.

Its rather humorous that they talk about a "break down" when a great deal of it was fostered by right wing groupings and US backed military commanders.

You haven't addressed the following
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14646826&postcount=81

:rolleyes:

Because I already have, but it was seen as biased and nobody liked to hear it from me, so I'm showing the same explanation, but from less biased sources, sources who also claim to oppose Pinochet.

Sources that, once again, let us see that Pinochet wasn't the option for Chile.

That is a legit thing to do. Do not say I haven't given my opinion on this already. That's what about half of this thread is.

Your opinion, which to the big picture, in the comfort of historicism, after years have passed and many died and suffered, matters not.:rolleyes:

And anyway, that doesn't make what Neu Leonstein and Andaluciae said wrong. Is what they stated in those quotes above incorrect?

Their posts do not offer any sources, these do not back your claims, which is what we're all interested in.

I'm sorry but I can't allow Gift of God to lie anymore and claim that the Soviets weren't involved. This is from his own source that he used but left out a major, major detail when showing the financial corruption of Allende:

Regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained not by the Soviet Ambassador but 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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article568154.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

That is a big fucking deal and if that doesn't show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile, well nothing, it does show Soviet/KGB support and intervention in Allende's Chile.

You don't know what substantive means, do you?

It's the adjective form of substantial. In other words, a lot. The quote you provided above does not show that the KGB exerted a big influence on Allende or Chile. It shows they had a small influence. An insubstantial one.

At most, one can claim that the KGB had some sort of intent, but there is no evidence that it was carried out.

That's two seperate parts. First it shows the influence it did have (the part I quoted), which Vasili Mitrokhin is explaining, then he said the KGB later gave an exaggerated reports of how much influence it had. However, that does not deny the fact that they had substantial influence in the first place. . . obviously.

Also, just look at what it says in the very beginning of the source:

BY FAR the most important of the KGB's contacts in South America was Salvador Allende Gossens (codenamed Leader by the KGB), whose election as President of Chile in 1970 was hailed as “a revolutionary blow to the imperialist system in Latin America
...


That quote does not show Soviet involvement either. All it shows is that the author of the article believes that the KGB believed that Allende was important.

That's funny because here it says Allende used violence and torture:

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_Democracy

Are you still trying to use this non-binding and unconstitutional resolution as evidence of Allende's wrongdoings?

TAI, in order for anyone to see how wrong you are about this, all they have to do is click on your sig where you incorrectly claim to be right about Chile, look at the whole thread instead of just your post, and then scroll down to find Neesika's legal arguments about how you're just wrong.

It's right here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14223508&postcount=336

And Allende's response to that same paper, showing the unconstitutionality of that declaration:
http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_respallende.htm

Well I have showed this time and time again, though I do understand I am quite biased. However, as I know you're a generally good guy, I'd really ask you to, in all seriousness, read the quotes below.

Less biased posters like Andalucia and Neu Leonstein (who aren't supporters of Pinochet at all) also showed how the coup was home-grown and a domestic issue, and at times better than I have shown, I'll admit.

From Andaluciae in:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649046&postcount=139

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14649180&postcount=142

From Neu Leonstein:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14234624&postcount=385

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14227535&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14224673&postcount=362

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14211757&postcount=274

And if anyone is interested, all you need to is scroll down in those threads, and you will read my (and other people's) responses to these posts that show how it was not solely home grown.

...He was corrupt and was paid off by them and let them apply influence over governmental policy and brought the KGB into things....

You have yet to provide evidence showing this to be true.

The CIA was operating in Chile, they didn't want Allende to come to power and they tried to get him out, but they didn't end up causing the coup which was domestic.

While foreign intervention by the USA was not the sole cause of the coup, it was definitely one of the causes.

GoG said that it wasn't a Cold War issue, I just thought I'd use this as an opportunity to bring it up. The documentation proves that, from the US point of view it was.

From the Chilean viewpoint, it was definitely more a domestic issue.

That documentation does not mention Soviet influence except to mention the possibility of the Soviets having a military base in Chile. And that memo doesn't even focus on that. It seems to discuss Allende's anti-US influence in the OAS, not Soviet intervention. The documentation does not prove that it was a Cold War issue at all.

...There is also this:

According to General Nikolai Leonov, former Sub-Director KGB, the Soviet Union supported Allende's regime economically, politically and militarily. [33]

Economic Support includes over 100 million dollars in credit, three fishing ships (that distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population), factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk. [33]

To me, this looks like any trade deal between two friendly nations. Do you have any evidence to show that this is covert support for establishing a dictatorship?

Political and moral support came mostly through the Communist Party and unions. However, there were some fundamental differences between Allende and Soviet political analysts who believed that some violence – or measures that those analysts "theoretically considered to be just" – should have been used.[33]

This actually shows how Allende refused to do what the Soviets suggested. Thanks for providing more evidence for my side.

Soviet weaponry (tanks and artillery) never got to Chile but was well on its way in the the Northern hemisphere summer of 1973. In addition to weapon, Soviet Union also provided financial support; 100 million dollar in soft loans to buy these weapons. It was the military coup that interrupted the delivery of armaments to Chile.[33]

And yet more evidence that the KGB may have had an intent to support Allende, but this support never materialised in any important way. Thanks, TAI!

And yet more evidence that the KGB may have had an intent to support Allende, but this support never materialised in any important way. Thanks, TAI!

And yet, all he has to do is illustrate the the Soviets were interested in Chile and it does become a cold war issue. The CIA got it right then, in getting a coup going before the soviets could help Allende.

And yet, all he has to do is illustrate the the Soviets were interested in Chile and it does become a cold war issue. The CIA got it right then, in getting a coup going before the soviets could help Allende.

The CIA is incredibly good at its job, they just have a tendency to go about it in the wrong way. Apparantly though, the KGB was an overall better intelligence agency. At least thats what I've read.

And yet, all he has to do is illustrate the the Soviets were interested in Chile and it does become a cold war issue. The CIA got it right then, in getting a coup going before the soviets could help Allende.

No. A negiligible and insubstantial amount of interest on the part of the Soviets does not make this a Cold War issue.

Just like a single mention of possible Soviet involvement in the CIA papers also does not make it a Cold War issue.

To be a Cold War issue, you would have to show that both parties (the USA and USSR) had some sort of active and important involvement in Chile at the time. As it stands now, we only have evidence of the USA doing so, and almost none of their documents indicate that this is a reaction to Soviet involvement.

That documentation does not mention Soviet influence except to mention the possibility of the Soviets having a military base in Chile. And that memo doesn't even focus on that. It seems to discuss Allende's anti-US influence in the OAS, not Soviet intervention. The documentation does not prove that it was a Cold War issue at all.

Except in Latin America, direct Soviet intervention was not the only Cold War influence the US was concerned with. The documents heavily cite concerns about Chile acting on behalf of Cuba within the OAS, and the anti-US influence being involved to achieve that. From the US point of view, this was a Cold War issue, and these actions were undertaken because of Cold War concerns, which the documentation I provided proves conclusively.

Except in Latin America, direct Soviet intervention was not the only Cold War influence the US was concerned with. The documents heavily cite concerns about Chile acting on behalf of Cuba within the OAS, and the anti-US influence being involved to achieve that. From the US point of view, this was a Cold War issue, and these actions were undertaken because of Cold War concerns, which the documentation I provided proves conclusively.

Um, Cuba is only mentioned once, when the possibility of Chile sponsoring Cuba as a member of the OAS.

I'm talking about these:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch06-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-06.htm (this is the link that mentions Cuba)

Again, this does not provide evidence for it being a Cold War issue.

No. A negiligible and insubstantial amount of interest on the part of the Soviets does not make this a Cold War issue.

Just like a single mention of possible Soviet involvement in the CIA papers also does not make it a Cold War issue.

So 100 million to buy arms isn't interest? At the least it isn't negligible.

To be a Cold War issue, you would have to show that both parties (the USA and USSR) had some sort of active and important involvement in Chile at the time. As it stands now, we only have evidence of the USA doing so, and almost none of their documents indicate that this is a reaction to Soviet involvement.

I haven't read the sources, but what do they claim is the reason for CIA involvement? Isn't the battle against communism in general the basis of the cold war. Wouldn't ousting Allende be part of a containment policy for the Western Hemisphere? I remember someone mentioning a Cuban link to Allende as well.

EDIT: Read your sources, they do mention a possibility of a soviet base in Chile. Describe Allende as Marxist. Still reading last document, as its long, but only one actually appropriate for this discussion.

Um, Cuba is only mentioned once, when the possibility of Chile sponsoring Cuba as a member of the OAS.

I'm talking about these:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch06-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-06.htm (this is the link that mentions Cuba)

Again, this does not provide evidence for it being a Cold War issue.

The first several documents are purely operational, and do not discuss motive.

The other documents, though, provide some indication of motive. In these the only motivational evidence provided in these pieces is that it is a Cold War issue. The preoccupation with Allende being a Marxist, the potential for intelligence sharing (especially common intelligence within the IADB) with Cuba, and the long term threats I discussed earlier are all indicative of the US mindset that this was a Cold War issue. That Allende was interfacing with Soviet proxies in the region, and that he could possibly increase his ties to the USSR. Or, are you just going to ignore these facts?

It is exceptionally clear that to the US this was a Cold War issue.

So 100 million to buy arms isn't interest? At the least it isn't negligible.



I haven't read the sources, but what do they claim is the reason for CIA involvement? Isn't the battle against communism in general the basis of the cold war. Wouldn't ousting Allende be part of a containment policy for the Western Hemisphere? I remember someone mentioning a Cuban link to Allende as well.

Where did you get that 100 million figure from?

Reasons for US involvement: Minimizing (sic) Latin American sensitivity to US preponderance, protecting US business interests, control of the Chilean economy, accessing the natural resources of Chile at low prices, etc.

Look if you believe that this was all about fighting communism, do you also believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were all about protecting US lives, and had nothing to do with oil or controlling the resources in the Middle East?

I addressed the Cuba link above.

No. A negiligible and insubstantial amount of interest on the part of the Soviets does not make this a Cold War issue.

Just like a single mention of possible Soviet involvement in the CIA papers also does not make it a Cold War issue.

To be a Cold War issue, you would have to show that both parties (the USA and USSR) had some sort of active and important involvement in Chile at the time. As it stands now, we only have evidence of the USA doing so, and almost none of their documents indicate that this is a reaction to Soviet involvement.

It is not a prerequisite that both sides be involved for it to be a Cold War issue, though. Merely that one side perceives it to be part of the larger Cold War, whether or not it actually was. In effect, Soviet involvement is irrelevant because the US made it a Cold War issue, whether it initially was or not.

As I've stated repeatedly, the Nixon Administration was a fundamentally irrational Presidency. It was openly hostile to external forces, and extremely paranoid--for god's sake, the man built his political career on red-baiting.

Reasons for US involvement: Minimizing (sic) Latin American sensitivity to US preponderance, protecting US business interests, control of the Chilean economy, accessing the natural resources of Chile at low prices, etc.

Other than the first one, do you have documentation of the others?

Look if you believe that this was all about fighting communism, do you also believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were all about protecting US lives, and had nothing to do with oil or controlling the resources in the Middle East?

Unrelated, as terrorism and Islamic extremism are perceived a substantially different threats from what the USSR was in the early seventies. The Soviet Union was an existential threat to the United States and its allies. Terrorism is not. You're comparing apples to ICBM's.

Also, Afghanistan was about, primarily the "Wig-out" attitude that overtook the US shortly after the attacks. Not really much more to it than that.

I addressed the Cuba link above.

Only partially.

The first several documents are purely operational, and do not discuss motive.

The other documents, though, provide some indication of motive. In these the only motivational evidence provided in these pieces is that it is a Cold War issue. The preoccupation with Allende being a Marxist, the potential for intelligence sharing (especially common intelligence within the IADB) with Cuba, and the long term threats I discussed earlier are all indicative of the US mindset that this was a Cold War issue. That Allende was interfacing with Soviet proxies in the region, and that he could possibly increase his ties to the USSR. Or, are you just going to ignore these facts?

It is exceptionally clear that to the US this was a Cold War issue.

Allende is mentioned as a Marxist once. Does every mention of Marxism automatically entail that this is a Cold War issue? When people accuse Obama of being socialist, is that also then a Cold War issue? Obviously not. Therefore we need more evidence than just one word.

The IADB memo also clearly states that Chilean membership in the IADB would not be a significant security risk, but it does mention the risk of Allende nationalising US interests. There is one mention of Cuba, where it is suggested that the US delegates to the IADB refrain from mentioning anything about the Cubans. There is nothing in there about Soviet involvement or any socialist or communist influence.

I do not find it exceptionally clear that this was a Cold War issue. In fact, considering the paucity of statements to that effect in all official documents, I think it is quite clear that the Cold War was not a significant rationale in this case.

Other than the first one, do you have documentation of the others?

Read The Political Use of Military Force in US Foreign Policy by James David Meernik.

Unrelated, as terrorism and Islamic extremism are perceived a substantially different threats from what the USSR was in the early seventies. The Soviet Union was an existential threat to the United States and its allies. Terrorism is not. You're comparing apples to ICBM's.

Also, Afghanistan was about, primarily the "Wig-out" attitude that overtook the US shortly after the attacks. Not really much more to it than that.

Since the Soviets were not a threat to the US in terms of Chile, the comparison is actually quite apt. In both cases, we have some sort of -ism scapegoat to excuse US involvement in the sovereignty of another nation.

Only partially.

Well, I expanded more on it in my previous post to this one.

To be a Cold War issue, you would have to show that both parties (the USA and USSR) had some sort of active and important involvement in Chile at the time. As it stands now, we only have evidence of the USA doing so, and almost none of their documents indicate that this is a reaction to Soviet involvement.

Which, in itself, would be insignificant, because:

1- Russia was supporting the elected guy.

2- Most international crimes that do not involve war but "support" to sides of a struggle in a third country are not justified by "the other guy did it first".

3- TAI regards Pinochet and the coup here as "good", US involvement or not, a view that should be added to psychodiagnosis manuals.

Which, in itself, would be insignificant, because:

1- Russia was supporting the elected guy.

2- Most international crimes that do not involve war but "support" to sides of a struggle in a third country are not justified by "the other guy did it first".

3- TAI regards Pinochet and the coup here as "good", US involvement or not, a view that should be added to psychodiagnosis manuals.

Cut it out. TAI, don't respond (to the wrapping, I mean, not the content).

(AKA, "in before Heikoku/TAI start". Don't. No insults. Not by implication, suggestion, subtlety, smilies, nothing, rien, nada.)

He told Heikoku to Cut it out
You he only told to not respond.

He told Heikoku to Cut it out
You he only told to not respond.

I am a tool. Nevermind. Going to edit . . . nothing to see here . . .

*backs away*

Where did you get that 100 million figure from?

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement

"Economic Support includes over 100 million dollars in credit, three fishing ships (that distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population), factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk. [33]...

...Soviet weaponry (tanks and artillery) never got to Chile but was well on its way in the the Northern hemisphere summer of 1973. In addition to weapon, Soviet Union also provided financial support; 100 million dollar in soft loans to buy these weapons. It was the military coup that interrupted the delivery of armaments to Chile.[33]"

They didn't just give them the 100 million (although they gave 'em a cheap loan, and a lot of other material aid- its not clear if the 1st 100 mil is the same as the second mentioned, I presume so.), but I don't think you sell that much armaments to someone unless you have some sort of stake to claim, friendly relations at the least. In a polarized world, this could be construed as a threat to the US- not just economically but for Capitalism in the region.

The CIA docs seemed to say they didn't think Allende was a threat of going international with the socialist/commie stuff, but that's not to say a higher up wouldn't have decided to add the possibility of that as a mark against Allende.

Reasons for US involvement: Minimizing (sic) Latin American sensitivity to US preponderance, protecting US business interests, control of the Chilean economy, accessing the natural resources of Chile at low prices, etc.

Look if you believe that this was all about fighting communism, do you also believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were all about protecting US lives, and had nothing to do with oil or controlling the resources in the Middle East.

Well, not Afghanistan, they don't have shit that's for sure,and to my knowledge isn't a major through way for oil or any other resource (unless you count opium)./irrelevance

It certainly isn't solely Cold war, but I think its unlikely that wasn't a factor.

Isn't half the cold war about economics? Half the battle is showing that we were more economically viable. The communists would normally nationalize American and other foreign industries, so yes, I think it is a viable outlook to have. Additionally better economy=>better military, so its sort of a double edged sword. Although this does come off as over broad (coming close to saying anything is cold war related), I think that there is some support in the idea that there is a cold war element outside the economic. The Cuban issue is important as Cuba was an important-ish cold war chess piece. It was important for America that Cuba turn out as badly as possible, ensuring that the Chileans wouldn't engage the Cubans and bring up the issue in OAS or IADB meetings could be a priority.

Also, the CIA docs are a few years prior to the coup, so if there is something more recent, it might give a better indication of American motives for helping get rid of him, at that time.

See: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-28.htm , under disadvantages. The possibility of a communist aligned or sympathetic Chile was a big deal, and even anticipated in 1970.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement

...

They didn't just give them the 100 million (although they gave 'em a cheap loan, and a lot of other material aid- its not clear if the 1st 100 mil is the same as the second mentioned, I presume so.), but I don't think you sell that much armaments to someone unless you have some sort of stake to claim, friendly relations at the least. In a polarized world, this could be construed as a threat to the US- not just economically but for Capitalism in the region.

They didn't sell or give 100 million dollars of military aid to Allende's government.

Here are the excerpts from the transcript of the speech (link to download pdf (http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/archivo_1140_1465/rev73.leonov.lect.ing.pdf)) that is the source of those comments:

There was talk of a loan to send Soviet armaments, at Salvador
Allende's request —I believe (General) Prats asked for it... Well, nobody
imagined calling in those loans afterwards. The materialization of this loan
took some time, but in the Northern hemisphere summer of 1973 the ships
carrying weapons for Chile were already on their way. But President
Allende’s reaction to the assassination of his military aide-de-camp caused
a very negative impression: he did not take advantage of the moment to
mobilize the masses and come out on to the street. Because tragedy was
already looming, and by the reports received through the CIA —where we
had sources, as they were always our number one target— we had secure
data that a coup d'étât would occur, as it was already practically prepared.
So, to make sure it wasn’t Soviet tanks that came out into the square to fire
on the La Moneda palace, the ships were ordered to turn round, to change
course and unload the weapons elsewhere, where they were sold....

...The military loan and the sending of arms was a entirely matter for
the army and the Defense Ministry. We as KGB or Intelligence always had
our differences with them; there were always things that kept us apart, and
each had its secrets. So I don’t know the details of the type of weaponry
that was on board those ships. I know there were tanks, yes. How many? I
don’t know. Some pieces of artillery, but again I don’t know how many.
Now I do know for certain —through the person who informed President
Allende that the loan had been approved— that the amount was for US$
100 million.

Please note that this support was promised before the coup, but was never materialised. It can not really then be considered as forming part of the 'substantial soviet involvement' claimed.


It certainly isn't solely Cold war, but I think its unlikely that wasn't a factor.

Isn't half the cold war about economics? Half the battle is showing that we were more economically viable. The communists would normally nationalize American and other foreign industries, so yes, I think it is a viable outlook to have. Additionally better economy=>better military, so its sort of a double edged sword. Although this does come off as over broad (coming close to saying anything is cold war related), I think that there is some support in the idea that there is a cold war element outside the economic. The Cuban issue is important as Cuba was an important-ish cold war chess piece. It was important for America that Cuba turn out as badly as possible, ensuring that the Chileans wouldn't engage the Cubans and bring up the issue in OAS or IADB meetings could be a priority.

Anything can be stretched if you pull hard enough.

Also, the CIA docs are a few years prior to the coup, so if there is something more recent, it might give a better indication of American motives for helping get rid of him, at that time.

See: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-28.htm , under disadvantages. The possibility of a communist aligned or sympathetic Chile was a big deal, and even anticipated in 1970.

Your link discusses the disadvantages of isolating Chile in the OAS and IADB, if Allende gets into power. In other words, they were saying that if Allende gets into power, and if the uS attempts to isolate Chile because of it, it might push Chile into siding with the Cubans and other leftist elements in the OAS and IADB.

They didn't sell or give 100 million dollars of military aid to Allende's government.

Just a loan, that they never expected to be repaid, according to your own source.

Here are the excerpts from the transcript of the speech (link to download pdf (http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/archivo_1140_1465/rev73.leonov.lect.ing.pdf)) that is the source of those comments:



Please note that this support was promised before the coup, but was never materialised. It can not really then be considered as forming part of the 'substantial soviet involvement' claimed.


Right, it never got there, but it would be silly to assume that the CIA, and other actors in Chile weren't aware of such a transaction

Your link discusses the disadvantages of isolating Chile in the OAS and IADB, if Allende gets into power. In other words, they were saying that if Allende gets into power, and if the uS attempts to isolate Chile because of it, it might push Chile into siding with the Cubans and other leftist elements in the OAS and IADB.

reread the part in parenthesis:"(Although such radicalization and alignment may have already occurred by that time.)"

further, such a turn is also mentioned in a memo from Kissinger: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch09-01.htm -first bullet.

I think given Allende's policies such events would have occurred for the US to consider the radicalization to have occured. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Presidency

such as: "1971, Chile re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba, joining Mexico and Canada in rejecting a previously-established Organization of American States convention prohibiting governments in the Western Hemisphere from establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba."

theres a lot more, but I have to go... He basically did almost everything the US had been fearing he would do.

Read The Political Use of Military Force in US Foreign Policy by James David Meernik.

$99.00 for a highly general book by a nobody from North Texas, and the one copy at the university is on the reserve at the University (meaning I can't check it out). I think not. How about Gaddis? If you're looking for something inexpensive by a scholar whose focus is on the Cold War, you can get his short "The Cold War: A New History" for, like, four bucks used, or for a more in depth read, look at his longer works, I recall he's some time looking at Chile, and largely reaching the same conclusions that I have.


Since the Soviets were not a threat to the US in terms of Chile, the comparison is actually quite apt. In both cases, we have some sort of -ism scapegoat to excuse US involvement in the sovereignty of another nation.

The difference is that the Nixon Administration perceived there to be a potential Soviet threat from a Chile that had fallen into their orbit. Given the personality traits of Nixon and his administration, it fits that they would perceive and respond to this. Further, this occurred in a broader climate of threat, which colors all decisions differently from non-threat environments. Iraq, on the other hand, is just a random tangent in a non-threat environment from a guy who wants to "finish what daddy couldn't".

Allende is mentioned as a Marxist once. Does every mention of Marxism automatically entail that this is a Cold War issue? When people accuse Obama of being socialist, is that also then a Cold War issue? Obviously not. Therefore we need more evidence than just one word.

You're comparing oranges to ICBM's, once again. Pres. Obama being called a socialist by radio shock jocks nearly two decades after the dissolution of the USSR has nothing to do with the Cold War. CIA analysts and the SOS calling Allende a Marxist in 1970, though does. The differences between the two cases should be pretty clear to you.

The IADB memo also clearly states that Chilean membership in the IADB would not be a significant security risk, but it does mention the risk of Allende nationalising US interests. There is one mention of Cuba, where it is suggested that the US delegates to the IADB refrain from mentioning anything about the Cubans. There is nothing in there about Soviet involvement or any socialist or communist influence.

Once again, it's not about the reality or the degree of the threat, it's about the perception of the threat by US decision makers. As I've said before, Soviet involvement in Chile was very low-level, largely as a result of the fact that they viewed him as a blithering ninnie. It's that the US was concerned about this fact that's relevant to US decision making processes.

I do not find it exceptionally clear that this was a Cold War issue. In fact, considering the paucity of statements to that effect in all official documents, I think it is quite clear that the Cold War was not a significant rationale in this case.

The concern about the spread of Marxism in Latin America, as well as Soviet and Cuban influence is clearly demonstrated in the documentation I provided. This is especially true in the Nixonian view of a long term threat originating from Chile.

Furthermore, the commentary of concern of nationalization of US interests in Chile fits the broader cold war pattern of Soviet clients around the world. Ranging from Nasser nationalizing the Suez, to Castro nationalizing everything, this fit the modus operandi of a Soviet client state.

$99.00 for a highly general book by a nobody from North Texas, and the one copy at the university is on the reserve at the University (meaning I can't check it out). I think not.

Most of the book is available here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=CA3-pO5sxQcC&dq=The+Political+Use+of+Military+Force+in+US+Foreign+Policy&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=mJMjR0ZkTG&sig=InTO5wLJrWp48HxK29EcfediTAE&hl=en&ei=OrnSSePYHY-EtAP02P3WCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPT1,M1) in 'preview' form. Just saying.

The difference is that the Nixon Administration perceived there to be a potential Soviet threat from a Chile that had fallen into their orbit. Given the personality traits of Nixon and his administration, it fits that they would perceive and respond to this. Further, this occurred in a broader climate of threat, which colors all decisions differently from non-threat environments. Iraq, on the other hand, is just a random tangent in a non-threat environment from a guy who wants to "finish what daddy couldn't".

You keep claiming that Nixon perceived it that way, but the evidence for such a claim seems to be very scant. We have evidence that Soviet involvement was minimal, almost no mention of Cuba or the Soviets in the documentation, and no evidence that Nixon or the CIA was aware of any Soviet involvement.

What we have is an inference based on his personality traits, which is very subjective indeed.

And it did not occur in a broader climate of threat. Chile was not a threat. Just like Iraq was not a threat.

You're comparing oranges to ICBM's, once again. Pres. Obama being called a socialist by radio shock jocks nearly two decades after the dissolution of the USSR has nothing to do with the Cold War. CIA analysts and the SOS calling Allende a Marxist in 1970, though does. The differences between the two cases should be pretty clear to you.

Why is it different? To me they seem similar in one important way: both use fear of the left to generate a rationale for attacking the person. In both cases, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as those who follow are willing to buy it as an excuse for action.

Once again, it's not about the reality or the degree of the threat, it's about the perception of the threat by US decision makers. As I've said before, Soviet involvement in Chile was very low-level, largely as a result of the fact that they viewed him as a blithering ninnie. It's that the US was concerned about this fact that's relevant to US decision making processes.

But you have yet to show that the US decision makers actually thought it had anything to do with the Soviets. You have yet to show that the US perceived any Soviet involvement.

The concern about the spread of Marxism in Latin America, as well as Soviet and Cuban influence is clearly demonstrated in the documentation I provided. This is especially true in the Nixonian view of a long term threat originating from Chile.

No. It isn't. Each of those words is only mentioned once (maybe one of them is mentioned twice) in all that documentation, and never as a reason for possible US involvement.

Furthermore, the commentary of concern of nationalization of US interests in Chile fits the broader cold war pattern of Soviet clients around the world. Ranging from Nasser nationalizing the Suez, to Castro nationalizing everything, this fit the modus operandi of a Soviet client state.

Cuba nationalised the US industries before he started dealing with the Soviets. It was the US response in form of the embargo that forced Cuba to deal so much with the Soviet economic bloc. So, unless you're going to argue that the US was worried about an increase in Soviet influence as a direct result of their actions, I would not say that this can be used as evidence of a perceived Soviet threat.