Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Since if we forget our history, we are doomed to repeat it, I thought that it would be fitting to once again chronicle that fateful event that happened on September 11th, 1973.

On October 24th, 1970, Salvador Allende's victory was ratified by the Chilean Congress. It had been a fair election, something of a rarity in South America, at that time. Although Richard Nixon had larger worries on his mind (the Vietnam War), he was troubled that Allende's victory in Chile would be perceived as weakening US influence in the area. This was also a prominent worry for Head of State Henry Kissinger. Thus, even before the election, the US government began devising various ways of thwarting an Allende victory. (1)

Their first course of action, was to try to get the Chilean Congress to ratify the runner up, Jorge Alessandri. However, when this plan fell through, the US had to move on to their second plan of action, "Track II", or military action, which included the assasination of a top military official, who pledged to respect the election results. (1)

Allende was formerly inagurated on November 3rd, 1970.(1)

A CIA postmortem dated Nov. 12, 1970 noted that "Dr. Salvador Allende became the first democratically-elected Marxist head of state in the history of Latin America - despite the opposition of the U.S. Government.

"As a result, U.S. prestige and interests ... are being affected materially at a time when the U.S. can ill afford problems in an area that has been traditionally accepted as the U.S. 'backyard'." (1)

For the next three years, the CIA used a three-pronged attack on Chile's democratically-elected leader - pouring money into congressional campaigns and Chilean newspapers, a cool diplomatic policy, and an "invisible blockade" of loans and credit to Chile. (1) This money from the CIA included more than one million dollars to various opposition parties. (2)

The CIA's plan worked - inflation and other economic woes increased, diplomatic ties between Chile and other nations worsened, and at every turn he ran into well-funded opposition.

On September 11th, 1973, a military coup seized control throughout Chile, and Salvador Allende "committed suicide". (2)

Nineteen days after the coup, a briefing paper prepared by Henry Kissinger put the "total dead" at 1,500, including 320 executions. (1)

"Now that they are in fact again a 'country in liberty' no obstacle is too high, no problem too difficult to solve. Their progress may be slow, but it will be as free men aspiring to goals which are for the benefit of Chile."
-- Navy report dated Oct. 1, 1973

Three weeks after the coup, US aid to Chile was turned back on, including loans and commodity credits for wheat and the such - things denied to the previous democratically-elected Allende goverment. (1)

Under Pinochet's direction, mass arrests, executions, torture and "disappearances" became the norm. By November 16th, 1973, US intelligence estimated that more than 13,500 individuals had been arrested. (1)

Pinochet ruled for some 17 years, gradually handing the reigns over in 1990. It was a period of brutal repression - by the end of his rule, conservative estimates report 3,000 people either dead or missing. (2)

According to government documents, after engineering the conditions necessary, the CIA then went on to fund the 1973 coup with over $350,000. (2)

The amount of misery and sorrow, of death and torture, is immeasurable, and can be directly attributed to the efforts of the Nixon Administration, including most prominently Henry Kissinger, and of the Ford Administration, for their compliancy in continuing the previous administration's policies.

1) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terroris...oup_USHand.html
2) http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/13/cia.chile.02/

-----

Read this and more at The Progressive Voice

I'm watching Bowling for Columbine and as soon as you made that post, the same story began playing, it was another nightmarish act of brutality caused by a corrupt government.
9/11/73, a day that will live in infamy.

Yeah, I'm with you Skvnky.

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/felux09112004/

I used them before in general.

totally tru. The CIA is a bitch.

Woah, that's fucked up. I hope you don't mind if I use your sig for the day.

At 9/11/04 05:27 PM, BarferPro wrote: Watch U.S. America 9/11! That's your rememberance right there!

conspiracist crap.

Unfortunately, none of this is surprising to me. It seems to me that the United States has always attempted to topple any government or government leader that disagrees with the United States, has an economic policy that is less than ideal for the United States, or has a form of government that the United States disapproves of. They've tried to get rid of Hugo Chavez for years, even though he was democratically elected, and has passed multiple referendums, simply because his economic policies negatively affect the United States' import of oil from Venezuela. They've repeatedly poured money into opposition and resistance groups, and supported and funded coups and rebellions that left corrupt, violent leaders in place. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq either remained United States puppets, or disentegrated into corruption, violence, and chaos.

What does have to do with anything? If you remember, in 1973 we were in the middle of the Cold War. We couldn't let many countries fall into Communism, because that would result in a world against us. I do think that it was stupid to support dictators, because that would result in people thinking that capitalism relates to dictatorships, which doesn't have to be true. However, you make it seem as if the communists were the good guys, which they weren't. Our mistake wasn't in wanting to get a different leader, but in wanting a dictator.

At 9/11/04 06:09 PM, seancor519 wrote: However, you make it seem as if the communists were the good guys, which they weren't.

What, they were the bad guys? Why?

Ok. Maybe they were good at heart, but their ideas were bad. Communism is proven to fail, by many examples. Don't say China is communist and successful, because communism did not succeed for them. they use many capitalist ideas, although they still are no democracy.

Sharing is fundamentally a bad idea?

At 9/11/04 06:44 PM, red_skunk wrote: Sharing is fundamentally a bad idea?

Sharing everything is fundamentally a bad idea. It would have to involve everyone to be good at heart, very hard-working , and productive.
In communism, what is the motivation to work hard, if the person next to you is lazy and does nothing? There is no motivation, because there will always be lazy and mean people.

At 9/11/04 06:44 PM, red_skunk wrote: Sharing is fundamentally a bad idea?

needles, STDs, etc, yes.

Sharing in the sake of good will and to improve the safety of one nation is good.

At 9/11/04 06:50 PM, seancor519 wrote: There is no motivation, because there will always be lazy and mean people.

What motivation is there slaving away for paper money all day? Just so that you can pay your bills and buy tv dinners? I don't see any motivation in a capitalist system.

At 9/11/04 08:07 PM, red_skunk wrote:

What motivation is there slaving away for paper money all day? Just so that you can pay your bills and buy tv dinners? I don't see any motivation in a capitalist system.

Wtf? In a capitalist system, if you don't slave all day, you can't buy cool stuff, or food. You will get just enough to live off welfare. The harder you work, pretty much, the more stuff you can buy! That's the motivation! In communism, if you start working extrra hard, you'll still get the same amount of money!

In Communism you cannot rise, but you also cannot fall.

In Capitalism you can rise and fall, but it's much more difficult to rise than to fall. Oftentimes you must be born into the circumstances that could allow you to rise. A middle-class man can become lower-upper class within a generation, but it takes at least 3 generations of lower-class to achieve middle-class.

So many end up on the same level as those in the Communist society.

Coincidence? I think not.

i don't see anything wrong with china's economy.

http://www.mabico.com/en/news/20040422/monetary_policy/article1801/

mabico... like everyone else... seems to think that china = win.

At 9/11/04 09:09 PM, Koshh wrote: i don't see anything wrong with china's economy.

As I said, china isn't realy communist. Their have many capitalist policies. I'm not sure, but I'm also guessing that China's standard of living isn't too high.

At 9/11/04 08:43 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

So many end up on the same level as those in the Communist society.

Which is better, everyone being poor or just some people.

With communism, since motivation to work is low, production is also low. That results in rapid inflation because demand is much higher than supply.
By the way, do tou guys remember the Soviet Union? That fell. Capitalism won the Cold War.

At 9/11/04 09:30 PM, seancor519 wrote: With communism, since motivation to work is low, production is also low. That results in rapid inflation because demand is much higher than supply.

Stop twisting the philosophy. Marxism is based off a man working hard because he knows it not only benefits himself, but also others.

By the way, do tou guys remember the Soviet Union? That fell. Capitalism won the Cold War.

That was Stalinism, not communism.

Eh.. you don't have enough evidence to confirm that it was in fact because of the US that this happened. Not that I am in favor of the CIA's actions, but to imply a confirmed correlation between the two things is incorrect.

For everyone else but the richest part of the world, coups happen all the time, Spain, a relatively stable country, was riddled by coups until recently. The million your referring to was actually given to a newspaper, likely a bribe. However, more than $30 million has been spent on ads against Bush, but I don't see a coup.

And to suggest that Chile's economy was single handedly sabotaged by the US is yet another streatch, any country so dependent on foreign loans that they can no longer support themselves without more, isn't much of a country to begin with. It's a widely known fact that countries experience economic problems when converting to socialism/communism, this, undoubtedly, played a much larger role in the economy than we did. And people don't like to see a failing economy without immedeat benefits.

I don't know if you/the progressive voice missed this in thier study of the allende, or you just chose to ignore this, but Allende was incredibly anti-American, to the point where some might see it as dangerous. And, that, mixed with his pro-marxist viewpoints, could make it seem as if he was just a pawn for the Soviet Union, assuming he wasn't one. I can't be the only one who can see the similarities between this and Cuba... and I also can't be the only one who thinks one Cuba was enough back then.

It's a complicated situation, one which can't be looked at impartially without at least some mention of the Soviet Union, but, it would seem as if the progressive voice leaves that huge player in history out... odd.

At 9/11/04 09:42 PM, -Wraith- wrote:

At 9/11/04 09:30 PM, seancor519 wrote: With communism, since motivation to work is low, production is also low. That results in rapid inflation because demand is much higher than supply.

Stop twisting the philosophy. Marxism is based off a man working hard because he knows it not only benefits himself, but also others.

To be fair, he didn't twist the philosophy. He just didn't mention that part of it.

At 9/11/04 09:49 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 9/11/04 09:42 PM, -Wraith- wrote: Stop twisting the philosophy. Marxism is based off a man working hard because he knows it not only benefits himself, but also others.

To be fair, he didn't twist the philosophy. He just didn't mention that part of it.

Actually, I did kinda mention that part. However, I agree, that in a Utopian society, where everyone was willing to work hard, communism would work. However, there are many people that would realize that they still get paid when they slack off. They will forget the common good and be selfish. It is part of human nature to have at least some selfishness. It is ignorant to believe that everyone would work for the good of the nation. People just aren't like that.

At 9/11/04 09:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: To be fair, he didn't twist the philosophy. He just didn't mention that part of it.

Duly noted.

The systems of capitalism and communism (or socialism, as I will use in this example) are very idealistic systems, but it is very difficult for them to work as stand-alone systems. In capitalism, while at first allowing people the freedom to decide their fortune, the freedom of the open market allows the domination of a few companies and a few individuals over many, unchecked by the government (the Industrial Revolution is probably the very example of what pure capitalism was, but we also saw the horrors that came along with it. The Pittsburgh Railroad Strike of 1877, in which the railroad company ordered state militia troops against the striking workers, for example. Funny that this system also sparked Marxism.)

Similiarly, while everyone in communism/socialism has their basic needs provided for, it is virtually impossible to establish a purely communist society. Even if it were established, in today's political climate it would have trouble with foreign relations of democratic/republic countries like the US.

So, a mix is best.

That was during the containment phase of the US's foreign policy. Yes, it was wrong. Forgive me for not being as upset at the recent deaths of a friend and a family member in New York City.

All I'm gonna say here is that we should never forget. And allow such never again

At 9/11/04 11:49 PM, BarferPro wrote: Disregard the entire movie for a few odd facts pointed out in the end then! See what I care!

What? I disregarded it as soon as I saw "two Jews were alerted moments before!"

At 9/11/04 09:47 PM, Jimsween wrote: Eh.. you don't have enough evidence to confirm that it was in fact because of the US that this happened. Not that I am in favor of the CIA's actions, but to imply a confirmed correlation between the two things is incorrect.

Well, the government has released records showing $350,000 that directly contributed to the coup. The CIA didn't orchestrate it, but they funded it.

At 9/11/04 09:47 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Eh.. you don't have enough evidence to confirm that it was in fact because of the US that this happened. Not that I am in favor of the CIA's actions, but to imply a confirmed correlation between the two things is incorrect.

Well, the government has released records showing $350,000 that directly contributed to the coup. The CIA didn't orchestrate it, but they funded it.

A tank costs 4 million... they funded it just about as much as Japan funded the atomic bomb. The coup didn't really even need funding, it was done by the military, they had planes dropping bombs on the presidential palace.

Personally, I'm suspiscious why the amount is so low.... of all the things I've heard in politics, I'm most sure that this one has some conspiracy behind it. Money laundering? Perhaps the CIA predicted it would soon have it's funding cut, so it started channeling funds to secret bank accounts under the rouge of support for foreign powers.

Let's try this out-

At 9/12/04 02:27 AM, Jimsween wrote: Personally, I'm suspiscious why the amount is so low....

The coup didn't really even need funding, it was done by the military, they had planes dropping bombs on the presidential palace.