Where exactly am I "wrongo?" I said we were involved, but we just haven't admitted to it. Yes, we had a lot of connections to Pinochet, but the actual coup is still sketchy (most would assume, however, that we did because of things like attempts to destabilize Allende, as well as immediately offering aid to Pinochet).
Where exactly am I "wrongo?" I said we were involved, but we just haven't admitted to it. Yes, we had a lot of connections to Pinochet, but the actual coup is still sketchy (most would assume, however, that we did because of things like attempts to destabilize Allende, as well as immediately offering aid to Pinochet).
I very rarely say someon's a troll, but vic just clearly qualifies. He constantly spouts uninformed claims which derail threads as people answer his errors.
The funny thing is, he admitted it recently, in a quote I saw where he said of course his aim is to post things to disrupt his enemies, or something close.
Wish I'd noted it for the sig value.
Of *course* the US was behind the overthrow, we have a clear record, down to the Nixon oval office conversations telling Kissinger to do it, as I recall.
The funny thing is, he admitted it recently, in a quote I saw where he said of course his aim is to post things to disrupt his enemies, or something close.
Wish I'd noted it for the sig value.
Of *course* the US was behind the overthrow, we have a clear record, down to the Nixon oval office conversations telling Kissinger to do it, as I recall.
From the Wiki article:
More research shows that your earlier claims are, like I said, wildly exaggerated and inflammatory. Maybe you'd be able to get a point across every now and then if you didn't find some way to blame America for all the world's problems in every post.
More research shows that your earlier claims are, like I said, wildly exaggerated and inflammatory. Maybe you'd be able to get a point across every now and then if you didn't find some way to blame America for all the world's problems in every post.
How about you put on your glasses and read the actual documents I linked. Here's a few excerpts for you:
"the head of the Chile?s feared secret police, DINA, was a paid CIA asset in 1975, and that CIA contacts continued with him long after he dispatched his agents to Washington D.C. to assassinate former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his 25-year old American associate, Ronni Karpen Moffitt."
?CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende,?
"The CIA made a payment of $35,000 to a group of coup plotters in Chile after that group had murdered the Chilean commander-in-chief, Gen. Rene Schneider in October 1970?a fact that was apparently withheld in 1975 from the special Senate Committee investigating CIA involvement in assassinations. The report says the payment was made ?in an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons.?
"At the direction of the White House and interagency policy coordination committees, CIA undertook the covert activities described below."
Etc, etc, etc. In other words, you are totally wrong - by choice or stupidity. Either way, I'm right, you're wrong. The United States (including the President and legislature) actively participates in intelligence gathering, economic support, political interference, violent overthrow, and attempted or successful assassinations in foreign nations. These actions have been occurring for centuries at least, and have been openly admitted to by the participants.
Go ask Kermit if you refuse to believe me. He's very proud of what he wrought in Iran.
Nowhere here have I provided conspiracy theories. Nowhere here have I disparaged the United States in any dishonest way. I just tell it like it ACTUALLY is, with documented proof. The US has done this in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatamela, Greece, Italy, Vietnam, Korea, etc, etc, etc. Those are just the ones with existing documentation and statements by the participants.
Look folks, I've spent the last four years obtaining a degree in history and political science. I've dedicated thousands of hours of study to these documents and the expert interpretations of them. I've been in the military and held the clearences which allowed me to see documents that people like you refuse to admit exist. You all are a bunch of sheep and armchair blind patriots. While I realize you're far too stupid and egocentric to ever see things as they actually are, I refuse to sit by and listen to you try to make the rest of the planet as worthlessly ignorant as you are. So keep spouting your mindless crap and I'll keep making you all look like 15 year old short bus riders.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
But that Holiday Inn Express I slept in last night was real comfy, PoW.
Thanks for reinforcing what we all suspected, that you're a conspiracy theorist. I posted the CIA's own website on this issue. Did you read that? AND... did you even read my post which you quoted? Allende was hated by his own people. He dicked over the UN's money machine. The US may have had a part in it, but we weren't the only ones. Marxism is just as bad as fascism. That is all I said in this thread, you blind commie sympathizers. Way to make up the rest :roll:
edit: Oh yeah, I also said Pinochet should "burn in hell." And (if there is one) I hope he's there. Now... what's your problem that you felt the need to make such personal attacks?
There is an excellent documentary on Allende that plays on the Sundance Channel from time to time. Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who want a good insight into what his presidency was like.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I'm not disputing that Allende was extermely unpopular because I wouldn't know. However he was elected by the people so I guess enough liked him to elect him. I am saying that what ever involvement we had in his otherthrow and death was wrong, especially when it led to Pinochet's rise and his murderous regime which we supported.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No. I was arguing against Craig234's lies about Allende's supposed democratic election and popularity, and PoW's claim that the CIA has admitted to its involvement (I link the CIA website where they still deny involvement). FFS, do you really believe that it was Pepsi that ordered the assassination?
That was all.
Nice of you to make up the conversation as you see fit. I don't believe I ever said anything about the CIA, other than quoting passages from government documents. Otherwise that was all you. I said US involvement, which has been admitted to and has documentation to support it.
Your entire claim is that the people who did bad say that they never did so you're asking everyone to ignore all of the existing evidence, the history of similar actions, and the direct admissions by various involved parties. For Christ's sake you're actually asking people to believe the word of the CIA!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAA.
It is formerly communist totalitarian states that have embraced the democratic, liberal capitalist model of social organization with greatest fervor since the fall of the USSR. Poland, Slovenia, really all of eastern Europe with the pathetic exception of Belarus -- all are actively captalist, and are now attempting to be liberal democracies. The nominally "communist" nations of Indochina (& China itself) are now liberalized, agressively capitalist, pseudo-communist autocracies.
Our Cold War era support of right-wing dictatorships may be morally unjustifiable. World events since the end of the Soviet era indicate it was also tough to justify from a Realpolitik perspective. We still struggle with multi-decade blowback off our support of the Sadams, Pinochets and Marcos of that era. Whereas we do massive amounts of profitable business with former communist bloc states. We might be far better off now if more small nations had fallen under the heel of soviet communism in the midcentury -- the tax money pissed away on wars and proxy wars could have funded roads, highways sidewalks, social security, tax cuts...etc.
Our Cold War era support of right-wing dictatorships may be morally unjustifiable. World events since the end of the Soviet era indicate it was also tough to justify from a Realpolitik perspective. We still struggle with multi-decade blowback off our support of the Sadams, Pinochets and Marcos of that era. Whereas we do massive amounts of profitable business with former communist bloc states. We might be far better off now if more small nations had fallen under the heel of soviet communism in the midcentury -- the tax money pissed away on wars and proxy wars could have funded roads, highways sidewalks, social security, tax cuts...etc.
Originally posted by: Vic
When did I do that? Oh, I didn't. I just linked the page showing that the CIA still denies direct involvement.
I have to say though, it would be better than asking people to believe that Pepsico ordered the hit.
I agree. Which is why I never talked about that either.
As I am taking a short break from law school final exams, my take on Pinochet, for what its worth...And we begin with....
Washington Post Editorial on Pinochet
:Q
Honestly, I never thought the Post would have written an editorial that ultimately praised Pinochet's legacy.
"AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years. For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked. Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile.
It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.
Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.
By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right."
-------------------------------------
I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion, but from my perspective, if the choice was a Soviet-backed Allende vs. US-backed Pinochet, then Pinochet made more sense. The US chose the lesser of two evils. Of course, this was based on an interest-based U.S. foreign policy rooted in realpolitik, which in turn had certain unfortunate moral consequences. This may explain why numerous conservatives and liberals currently advocate a value-based foreign policy approach. Certainly, this is easier said than done, as the war in Iraq has proven. That said, I have no love for the Jim Baker approach to foreign policy. His massive f***-up after the first Gulf War hasn't garnered him enough flak
Back on topic...as far as Pinochet goes, I don't think there was a better alternative. Allende was backed by the Soviet government (little surprise there) through the KGB. So the United States chose the pro-Western autocrat over the anti-Western totalitarian. There is no denying it: Pinochet was a son-of-a-bitch, a dictator who swiped millions of dollars from Chilean coffers. Thor Halvorssen, President of the Human Rights Foundation in New York, characterized Pinochet's brutality succinctly:
"Inspired by the Chilean congressional vote to remove Salvador Allende from power, Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile ? by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990. Some insist he ?saved? Chile from Marxist tyranny and created an economic miracle. Allende, a democratically elected thug, had set about dismantling Chilean democracy and civil society. The argument goes that, had Allende become a Chilean Castro, it is probable many more would have died and millions suffered (the death and torture toll from Fidel Castro?s totalitarian dictatorship being far greater than Pinochet?s). Why only two alternatives? Why couldn?t Chile have enjoyed economic prosperity and the widespread protection of human rights and the rule of law? Freedom might have been a messy, clumsy, and imperfect alternative but despotism, as Pinochet and Castro demonstrate, is a lot messier. Pinochet?s name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex."
Modern Latin American history indicates that Allende would have quite likely become a Chilean Castro, and would have killed and tortured far more (as Castro actually has). Sadly, Allende and Pinochet were the options at the time. And the Post got it right: Pinochet's free-market reforms left Chile an economic prosperous country, whereas Cuba is an economic sink-hole. Pinochet was the only Latin American dictator to seriously embrace free market reforms. Notwithstanding his horrible human rights record, I am not surprised the international left despised him. He actually accomplished what every other dictator merely promised: he left the country far better than when he found it. Now that is a sick paradox. There was no excuse for Pinochet's crimes, and it would have been just for the Chilean people to have held Pinochet accountable for his horrible crimes. The best they did was to vote him out of office in a plebiscite. And the bastard actually stepped down, which was remarkable for a South American dictator.
What is even more remarkable is that the Chilean people either loved or hated him. There's an old Spanish joke about Franco that is equally applicable in the case of Pinochet:
"A reporter traveled to Spain to learn what people think of Franco. Upon arriving in a village, the reporter asked one man, but the man insisted they walk out into the country. Yet once there, he still hesitated. "Let's go by that lake," he said. When they arrived at the lake, the reporter asked yet again, but the man insisted that they take a row-boat out of the middle of the lake. When they got there and the reporter asked again, the man finally leaned over and whispered, "I like him."
Halvorssen asked the right question: why only two alternatives? Any theories folks? Does a interests-based foreign policy make more sense than a value-based one?
Okay...rant over. Back to law school finals. :clock:
Washington Post Editorial on Pinochet
:Q
Honestly, I never thought the Post would have written an editorial that ultimately praised Pinochet's legacy.
"AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years. For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked. Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile.
It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.
Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.
By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right."
-------------------------------------
I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion, but from my perspective, if the choice was a Soviet-backed Allende vs. US-backed Pinochet, then Pinochet made more sense. The US chose the lesser of two evils. Of course, this was based on an interest-based U.S. foreign policy rooted in realpolitik, which in turn had certain unfortunate moral consequences. This may explain why numerous conservatives and liberals currently advocate a value-based foreign policy approach. Certainly, this is easier said than done, as the war in Iraq has proven. That said, I have no love for the Jim Baker approach to foreign policy. His massive f***-up after the first Gulf War hasn't garnered him enough flak
Back on topic...as far as Pinochet goes, I don't think there was a better alternative. Allende was backed by the Soviet government (little surprise there) through the KGB. So the United States chose the pro-Western autocrat over the anti-Western totalitarian. There is no denying it: Pinochet was a son-of-a-bitch, a dictator who swiped millions of dollars from Chilean coffers. Thor Halvorssen, President of the Human Rights Foundation in New York, characterized Pinochet's brutality succinctly:
"Inspired by the Chilean congressional vote to remove Salvador Allende from power, Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile ? by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990. Some insist he ?saved? Chile from Marxist tyranny and created an economic miracle. Allende, a democratically elected thug, had set about dismantling Chilean democracy and civil society. The argument goes that, had Allende become a Chilean Castro, it is probable many more would have died and millions suffered (the death and torture toll from Fidel Castro?s totalitarian dictatorship being far greater than Pinochet?s). Why only two alternatives? Why couldn?t Chile have enjoyed economic prosperity and the widespread protection of human rights and the rule of law? Freedom might have been a messy, clumsy, and imperfect alternative but despotism, as Pinochet and Castro demonstrate, is a lot messier. Pinochet?s name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex."
Modern Latin American history indicates that Allende would have quite likely become a Chilean Castro, and would have killed and tortured far more (as Castro actually has). Sadly, Allende and Pinochet were the options at the time. And the Post got it right: Pinochet's free-market reforms left Chile an economic prosperous country, whereas Cuba is an economic sink-hole. Pinochet was the only Latin American dictator to seriously embrace free market reforms. Notwithstanding his horrible human rights record, I am not surprised the international left despised him. He actually accomplished what every other dictator merely promised: he left the country far better than when he found it. Now that is a sick paradox. There was no excuse for Pinochet's crimes, and it would have been just for the Chilean people to have held Pinochet accountable for his horrible crimes. The best they did was to vote him out of office in a plebiscite. And the bastard actually stepped down, which was remarkable for a South American dictator.
What is even more remarkable is that the Chilean people either loved or hated him. There's an old Spanish joke about Franco that is equally applicable in the case of Pinochet:
"A reporter traveled to Spain to learn what people think of Franco. Upon arriving in a village, the reporter asked one man, but the man insisted they walk out into the country. Yet once there, he still hesitated. "Let's go by that lake," he said. When they arrived at the lake, the reporter asked yet again, but the man insisted that they take a row-boat out of the middle of the lake. When they got there and the reporter asked again, the man finally leaned over and whispered, "I like him."
Halvorssen asked the right question: why only two alternatives? Any theories folks? Does a interests-based foreign policy make more sense than a value-based one?
Okay...rant over. Back to law school finals. :clock:
He saved Chile from Communism and about 3,000 people died in the process.
How many millions have died because of Communism?
How many millions have died because of Communism?
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
You mean dictatorships, there has never been a real communist government on any large scale, just totalitarian states using the name to gain power.
Originally posted by: jrenz
There you go... really supported your claims there.
Maybe you should bother reading a book now and then, and instead of distorting the events you could try looking at them objectively... but I guess that's above your "It's all America's fault" attitude... you might have to face the truth, and we couldn't have that now could we?
Maybe when you're older
Pinochet ties with CIA are well documented, and not even denied anymore:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/02-01.htm
In my opinion is one of the darkest and more embarrassing pages of US history, and one that people should know about to avoid in the future similar mistakes.
Since "communism" is not an actual threat to me or my way of life in American at this moment I would not be in favor of murdering Americans to stop it.
I would however if some one or group did try to take away my rights or my property I would have no problem with killing them to defend myself. It is not murder if it is in self defense.
In countries where communists took over they siezed private property from individuals, I have no problem with people who kill to defend thier property.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter