Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Argh, teh colon outsmarted me!

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.

Yeah, answered your own question.

Oh, that's just great. Evil capitalist american pigs ranting at our expenses. :)

Well, people down here that don't have a pole up their asses, understand the following:
a) Allende was a socialist, not a communist. His ultimate goal was a pacific, long-term transition to communism.
b) Allende was wrong. The country didn't met the circumstances to achieve such fast social and economical changes.
c) Allende was an hypocrite. While he preached social equality, he feasted his ass out of imported, expensive food, stocked by hundreds down his house. Meanwhile, the people had to form in several blocks-long lines in order to buy some bread or a bottle of milk.
d) The "good" that was in the coup lasted aprox. 4-5 hours. That's the time the people in their houses took to realize that the streets were now battlefields.
e) One thing is that Allende and Castro were pals, and other thing is that the military raided a music school in La Serena few hours after the coup, killing some students and imprisoning many. Reason: The school band had recently played at Cuba. The military supposed that the students came back with weapons for the communist armies. Obviously, they didn't. The students were executed, however. And many teachers too.
f) The CIA funded the coup. That's just the way it was. There's no gray areas there, you just fund or not fund a military coup.
e) We have to move on. It's been 30 years now, Allende lost the battle against the worms long time ago, Pinochet is crapping his diapers (literally) while waiting for a trial, and the country is changing.

Let's not forget, but let's not get stuck in the past. That goes for SO many other countries, too.

I did not answer my own question, why give money at all if it's not for anything.

At 9/12/04 05:03 PM, Jimsween wrote: I did not answer my own question, why give money at all if it's not for anything.

in chilean currency, 300,000 bucks is quite a bunch of money, even for the military. Maybe they used it in stuff like weapons, propaganda and such. Y'know, the CIA also funded the opposite parties at the '70 election.

Uhm.... it doesn't magically become more money because you bring it to Chile. Chileans use the Peso, which is about equal to 1/7th of a dollar. So they have nearly 2 million Peso's, but you see, since the peso is worth less, it takes more to buy something. So an M1 Abrams tank is actually worth 28 million Peso's.

Allende gave the coup all the funding it needed, by simply sustaining a militia, they had far more than 2 million pesos at thier disposal.

According to the current inflation, it was mo'like 200 million Pesos. And, you see, costs can change according to a lot of different factors. The fact is, the CIA supported the coup, it doesn't matter if it was 1 dollar or 1 million dollars. It just has a meaning beyond the material one.

At 9/12/04 05:42 PM, Empanado wrote: According to the current inflation, it was mo'like 200 million Pesos. And, you see, costs can change according to a lot of different factors. The fact is, the CIA supported the coup, it doesn't matter if it was 1 dollar or 1 million dollars. It just has a meaning beyond the material one.

No no no no no no no. God.. just stop talking. Money now is only woth about 4x as much as it was back then. You can't even go back far enough for the dollar to be worth so much.

You can say "the fact is" all you want, but that doesn't change a thing. The real fact is, that the amount of money the CIA gave was so useless that for you to not be suspiscious as to why so very little was given (rather than just nothing) you must be horribly blinded by your previous convictions.

The CIA's actions back then, could be compared to the CIA giving the KKK a single colt .45, it doesn't make sense.

At 9/12/04 07:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: No no no no no no no. God.. just stop talking. Money now is only woth about 4x as much as it was back then. You can't even go back far enough for the dollar to be worth so much.

I'm sure you're factoring in inflation, plus the amount that the peso had deviated from the dollar since then, mmm sweenie dear?

At 9/12/04 07:26 PM, red_skunk wrote: I'm sure you're factoring in inflation, plus the amount that the peso had deviated from the dollar since then, mmm sweenie dear?

Didn't think to do it since the difference wouldn't be great enough in the end to effect the point of the debate, the amount could have been 5 million and it still would have meant nothing. We're talking about a militia that is likely being funded hundreds of millions, if not a billion.

At this point are you arguing because you think your right, or because it would hurt your ego too much to admit your wrong?

"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."

coups happen in different ways, many ppl believe that bush was not democratically elected and i must say i agree. coup??

however, i think this thread is wavering off the initial point. i saw this thread as making a connection between the US interventionist international policies and the date 9/11.

i can not see how you can seperate the terror act of 2001 and the past and present interventionist policies of the US.

like it or not, and i see from this thread alone that many DO like it, the US has fucked up countless lives of faceless forigners.

like it or not i suggest that 9/11/01 can be seen as payback for some of it....

i can see how some would believe that america simply had it coming. and before you get high and mighty about cost of inocent lives, look at the cost of inocent lives the US pursuit of materialism has cost. im starting to agree witht he terrorists, purhaps there are no inocents!!! purhaps your inaction as voting US citizens does makes you culpable?

YOU, yes, YOU can make a difference to how your country acts internationally, and until you start exercising your ability to act for change purhaps YOU ARE A LIGITIMATE TARGET.

you can buy a takeover of a country for $350,000??

ahh the good old days before inflation got outa hand.

At 9/12/04 07:46 PM, Jimsween wrote: At this point are you arguing because you think your right, or because it would hurt your ego too much to admit your wrong?

What the hell are you arguing?

At 9/12/04 07:47 PM, BarferPro wrote: How said they were jews? It said they were workers at an instant messaging company in Isreal!

The majority of Israeli's are Jewish, if you hadn't figured that out yet.

You misconcieve the facts to bring about your own conclusion separate to the topic at hand, huh?

You're the one who brought that into this topic, it has nothing to do with anything.

You think I was making that shit up?!

Yes.

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.

*sigh* no one is twisting philosphy, they are just pointing out REALITY. No one works hard to benfit the person around them. No one would, especially if no matter how hard he works, he will never be in a better position than the lazy man next to him. Welcome to reality kid.

At 9/12/04 08:10 PM, XcakerX wrote: No one works hard to benfit the person around them.

So you wouldn't work hard to provide for, say, your wife and kids?

At 9/12/04 07:57 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 9/12/04 07:46 PM, Jimsween wrote: At this point are you arguing because you think your right, or because it would hurt your ego too much to admit your wrong?

What the hell are you arguing?

That at the very least, the money was not meant to help the coup. More likely it was to gain the favor of the soon to be leaders of Chile.

At 9/12/04 09:45 PM, Jimsween wrote: That at the very least, the money was not meant to help the coup. More likely it was to gain the favor of the soon to be leaders of Chile.

Ok. So what do you say about this article, stating -
"Kornbluh told CNN that the CIA -- which provided $350,000 to help fund the coup -- had not played a direct role in the coup."

Peter Kornbluh, Chile Documentation Project director at the National Security Archive

(the CNN article I previously linked to)

At 9/12/04 10:32 PM, BarferPro wrote: ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID?!
A movie about 9/11 in a thread entitled Remembering 9/11!!!

Can you read? Can you? If you can, go back and read the first post. Go on. I'll wait..

.... ... What is it about again? What is this thread about?

Now then... Do September 11th, 2001 conspiracy theories have anything to do with this thread? No? No they don't, that's right. Very good.

Now, go back to dicking around with conspiracy theories - you obviously can't make a bit of sense around here. But you do get a special-ed star for effort. Congratulations.

Fuck 9/11. It's another date where another problem happened. I don't see countless americans mourning over Hiroshima, Nagawaske, or Halifax! Oh, wait...That's probably because these americans don't know what the hell happened in ALL THREE. Before anyone decides to try and bitch at me, don't make any anti-symetic comments (that makes you in the same league as Hitler, you know, the guy who massacred millions?), or try any religious bull shit on me ("You need a good trip to hell and Satan assram you" for example), I am not in the christian religion, nor am I any religion. Now get over it, remember but don't create some façade that you're the only ones who have ever been wronged.
Assholes.

At 9/12/04 11:13 PM, SufferingPlanet wrote: Fuck 9/11. It's another date where another problem happened. I don't see countless americans mourning over Hiroshima, Nagawaske, or Halifax! Oh, wait...

Read the thread.
Asshole.

At 9/12/04 09:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: Ok. So what do you say about this article, stating -
"Kornbluh told CNN that the CIA -- which provided $350,000 to help fund the coup -- had not played a direct role in the coup."

Peter Kornbluh, Chile Documentation Project director at the National Security Archive

What am I supposed to see in that? If anything, I see something which proves my point.

It really seems as if these donations by the CIA, which you'd think would be kept really secret being that they would alert Allende of a coup, were made awfully public. It's almost as if the CIA intended to make it obvious... but why?

im starting to agree witht he terrorists, purhaps there are no inocents!!! purhaps your inaction as voting US citizens does makes you culpable?

YOU, yes, YOU can make a difference to how your country acts internationally, and until you start exercising your ability to act for change purhaps YOU ARE A LIGITIMATE TARGET.

i retract this statement i made earlier and apolagise to anyone that may have been offended by it.

in no way do i want to suggest that those victims of the twin towers attack were responsible for what happened to them.

the thrust of my argument was and is that the american culture, as much as any culture can be defined, is a culture based iin part on fear and violence. however i took it too far in the a post that might have been read as me saying that the victums of the 9-11-01 attackes were anything other than inocent victims.

sorry.

At 9/13/04 12:45 AM, Jimsween wrote: What am I supposed to see in that? If anything, I see something which proves my point.

It really seems as if these donations by the CIA, which you'd think would be kept really secret being that they would alert Allende of a coup, were made awfully public. It's almost as if the CIA intended to make it obvious... but why?

No Jimsween, this infomation was just released to the public in 1999, when Clinton made everything avaliable. It had been 25 years, and under certain right-to-know laws, the information was released to the public.

At 9/13/04 10:16 AM, BarferPro wrote: The practical whole of the movie was focused around the REAL EVENTS that occurred on 9/11, you stupid fuck!

Go back and read the first post. I know it's a lot of squiggly lines, but I have faith that you can read it correctly. It has nothing to do with your little daydreams.

At 9/13/04 10:16 AM, BarferPro wrote: The practical whole of the movie was focused around the REAL EVENTS that occurred on 9/11, you stupid fuck!

We're talking about 9-11-1973, Mr. Barfer. We're talking about Chile. C-H-I-L-E. Y'know, third-world country... latin-american... hot chicks... rings a bell?

At 9/12/04 09:45 PM, Jimsween wrote: That at the very least, the money was not meant to help the coup. More likely it was to gain the favor of the soon to be leaders of Chile.

That takes 'em from being imperialistic to being just plain gh3y. But it's possible. I guess you may be right, Jimsween.
(Whoa, there goes a phrase i never thought i'd say)

At 9/13/04 10:14 AM, ahundredandoneskunks wrote: No Jimsween, this infomation was just released to the public in 1999, when Clinton made everything avaliable. It had been 25 years, and under certain right-to-know laws, the information was released to the public.

I'm aware of that, but this would be one of those things you would normally not keep all the evidence about.

At 9/13/04 09:46 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm aware of that, but this would be one of those things you would normally not keep all the evidence about.

I don't know standard operating procedure for the CIA in terms of coups records, hopefully you'll admit to the same.