9th of september. Never forget...

[JohnnyWang]

...Chile 1973.

Vivá Allende.

[Maus]

You know...

This would've been a much better topic had you made it, oh, two days ago.

But really, what's your point? Are you trying to make a subtle jab at something?

[JohnnyWang]

I meant, 11th. Dam my brain going different tracks.

Anyway 9/11 -73.

[fli]

At 9/11/05 02:01 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: I meant, 11th. Dam my brain going different tracks.

Anyway 9/11 -73.

There you go!
I was just about to post that you got it wrong... but you caught it.

Oh wells...

[Maus]

Ah, well then. 8)

I don't know terribly much about the coup, other than bits and pieces. I don't think you can really count Isabel Allende's book, The House of Spirits. :\

Care to fill us in on your thoughts concerning the matter? :)

[JohnnyWang]

At 9/11/05 02:13 PM, Maus wrote:
Care to fill us in on your thoughts concerning the matter? :)

I think it's a good example of Dollar imperialism and very unreponsible foreign politics from the US.

[lapis]

At 9/11/05 02:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: I think it's a good example of Dollar imperialism and very unreponsible foreign politics from the US.

It's just power politics. A communist gets elected in America's back yard (sort of) so they do whatever they can do get rid of him. It's not like there's anyone who actually believes that the US stand for democracy or freedom. In their own country maybe, but outside their borders violent dictators are among America's best friends.

[Jimsween]

At 9/11/05 02:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: I think it's a good example of Dollar imperialism and very unreponsible foreign politics from the US.

Dollar imperialism sure is cheap, considering we only spent like 4 million. Jeeze why arent we doing that with Iraq.

The coup wasn't because of the US, it was because of Allende, just like Castro, he screwed his country up by rushing economic reforms, except he couldn't blame it on the US like Castro could, eventually some people got angry enough to start a coup.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/11/05 03:20 PM, Jimsween wrote: Dollar imperialism sure is cheap, considering we only spent like 4 million. Jeeze why arent we doing that with Iraq.

The coup wasn't because of the US, it was because of Allende, just like Castro, he screwed his country up by rushing economic reforms, except he couldn't blame it on the US like Castro could, eventually some people got angry enough to start a coup.

Err, facts are not for cool people. The cool people just like to blame the US. Its more fashionable.

[lapis]

At 9/11/05 03:56 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Err, facts are not for cool people. The cool people just like to blame the US. Its more fashionable.

The CIA were already planning a coup in 1970 but they called it off for unknown reasons. Pinochet's coup was great news for Nixon, who had already spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year. About the US involvement in the actual Pinochet coup: Claims of their direct involvement in the actual coup are neither proven nor contradicted by publicly available documentary evidence; many potentially relevant documents still remain classified.
What we do know is that after the coup, the US did everything to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more. These are facts, and for me reason to like the US even less. Now I'd blame this all on Nepal or fucking Botswana for all I care, but I don't because they didn't have anything to do with this.

[Jimsween]

At 9/11/05 04:09 PM, lapis wrote: What we do know is that after the coup, the US did everything to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more. These are facts, and for me reason to like the US even less. Now I'd blame this all on Nepal or fucking Botswana for all I care, but I don't because they didn't have anything to do with this.

Thats not true. We aided him, but there was plenty more we could have done. Our economic aid to Chile never reached its previous levels.

Nevertheless, you can't blame a country for looking after it's own interests. It's the same as us giving money to Colombia to fight the cartel. Just because they can't get thier act together doesn't mean that we should all be subject to the perils that amount from a virtual anarchy.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/11/05 03:20 PM, Jimsween wrote: except he couldn't blame it on the US like Castro could,

Sure he could. The US interfered with Chile throughout Allende's presidency in a variety of ways. The US was the major player responsible for the coup, and Pinochet's ensuring reign of terror.

[Demosthenez]

Oh, I know the US was involved. Im not denying that. But however, the US had no direct involvement in the coup and claiming it was a complete US operation is complete retartedness. I mean, what, I read in that article something like $11 million was given to the people to help the overthrow over a period of like 12 years? That is hardly dollar imperialism when you are spending cash "mostly through radio and print advertising" to overthrow a goverment.

Allende definately didnt help his position much either.

[Jimsween]

At 9/11/05 04:30 PM, red_skunk wrote: Sure he could. The US interfered with Chile throughout Allende's presidency in a variety of ways. The US was the major player responsible for the coup, and Pinochet's ensuring reign of terror.

Oh come on. If he went to the Chilean people and said that thier woes were the US's fault for not giving as much aid as they used to, they would immedeatly murder him.

All Castro had was that we placed an embargo on him, which was the least of his economic problems.

If a few million dollars is enough to change a government, then why don't we just do that for Iraq and Iran and north Korea? I'm waiting for one of the pro-conspiracy people to explain that.

[lapis]

At 9/11/05 04:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: Thats not true. We aided him, but there was plenty more we could have done. Our economic aid to Chile never reached its previous levels.

There wasn't really a need to do anything more. The US had already built up the Chilean army during Allende's years. And as long as Pinochet was in power the communist threat was thwarted, so it wasn't necessary to give him economic aid. Furthermore, Nixon didn't want to get in the news with the whole Chile thing, parts of the CIA documents covering it were not released until the late nineties. So more conspicious aiding was not a priority.
Let me be more specific: after the coup the US did everything they thought was necessary to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more

Nevertheless, you can't blame a country for looking after it's own interests. It's the same as us giving money to Colombia to fight the cartel. Just because they can't get thier act together doesn't mean that we should all be subject to the perils that amount from a virtual anarchy.

There wasn't anarchy, there was a reasonably stable goverment that had increased it's popularity from 36.3% in 1970 to 43% in 1973. The only threats to stabiltity in the region were the generals, and the US supported them. Allende's economic reforms were actually doing pretty well the first year, but the free fall of the copper prices (Chile's most important exports those days) trashed the economy.

And of course America is looking after it's own interests, but US presidents have always claimed that the US stood for global freedom and democracy and this is just one case that disproves that claim.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/11/05 04:32 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I mean, what, I read in that article something like $11 million was given to the people to help the overthrow over a period of like 12 years?

It was $11 million per year, and this was direct funding of military and top opposition leaders. The people who went on to overthrow Allende. In addition, the US purposely stopped necessary aid for a singularly political reason, and actively worked to debilitate the Chilean economy. Despite all of the US's efforts, the majority of the population still supported Allende at the time of the coup. Work on your reading comprehension. And read up on the subject a little more, why don't you. Allende was only in power for three years.

[Jimsween]

At 9/11/05 04:49 PM, lapis wrote: There wasn't really a need to do anything more. The US had already built up the Chilean army during Allende's years. And as long as Pinochet was in power the communist threat was thwarted, so it wasn't necessary to give him economic aid. Furthermore, Nixon didn't want to get in the news with the whole Chile thing, parts of the CIA documents covering it were not released until the late nineties. So more conspicious aiding was not a priority.

Wow, I'm not sure where to start. How exactly did we build up the army during Allende's years? Those were the years we gave the least aid.

You would logically give aid to keep Pinochet in power, if you wanted him in power.

The reasons for giving aid before Allende came into power are the same for after, so it makes little sense not to give the same unless our motivations had changed.

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

Let me be more specific: after the coup the US did everything they thought was necessary to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more

So now you can read the US's mind, too?

Apperantly, the amount we give in aid to keep a dictator in power is pretty much the same as the amount we give to third world countries to help development. Strange coincidence.

There wasn't anarchy, there was a reasonably stable goverment that had increased it's popularity from 36.3% in 1970 to 43% in 1973. The only threats to stabiltity in the region were the generals, and the US supported them. Allende's economic reforms were actually doing pretty well the first year, but the free fall of the copper prices (Chile's most important exports those days) trashed the economy.

Anarchy is having repeated coups. I wasn't referring to the state during allende's presidency but rather the state of Chile as a whole after the coup.

And of course America is looking after it's own interests, but US presidents have always claimed that the US stood for global freedom and democracy and this is just one case that disproves that claim.

Thats also not true, most US presidents have said the US was not going to interfere with international politics. And this case certainly does not disprove that claim, we can very well stand for global freedom and still support a dictator, espescially when there is a Soviet threat. Cuban missile crisis, anyone?

[lapis]

At 9/11/05 04:58 PM, Jimsween wrote: Wow, I'm not sure where to start. How exactly did we build up the army during Allende's years? Those were the years we gave the least aid.

One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972.
The generals were against Allende, so if US wanted to get rid of Allende it would be wise to fund those that opposed him.

You would logically give aid to keep Pinochet in power, if you wanted him in power.

And they did. The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public.

The reasons for giving aid before Allende came into power are the same for after, so it makes little sense not to give the same unless our motivations had changed.

With a pro-US dictator in power who has the support of the military there's no need to give more aid as the threat of communists taking over has gotten smaller.

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

You did, but less.

So now you can read the US's mind, too?

I can make assumptions. Just like you.

Apperantly, the amount we give in aid to keep a dictator in power is pretty much the same as the amount we give to third world countries to help development. Strange coincidence.

If you're gicing a country military aid just before and after an anti-democratic coup then you're not doing that for development purposes. It doesn't take mind-reading skills to figure that out.

Thats also not true, most US presidents have said the US was not going to interfere with international politics.

Then they lied, right? Because the US did, in many occasions.

And this case certainly does not disprove that claim, we can very well stand for global freedom and still support a dictator, espescially when there is a Soviet threat. Cuban missile crisis, anyone?

I really doubt that Allende's Chile was a threat to American homeland security. When you support someone who had violently overthrown a democratic government then you're not helping worldwide freedom. If soviet missile were being built in Chile then I could understand America getting restless. There weren't any. The US supporting this coup was the result of the anti-communist doctrine that penalized a lot of people who had nothing to do with Soviet agression.

[Empanado]

At 9/11/05 02:13 PM, Maus wrote: I don't know terribly much about the coup, other than bits and pieces. I don't think you can really count Isabel Allende's book, The House of Spirits. :\

Isabel Allende is a total García Márquez rip-off. :(

Anyways, I agree with the previously stated: The coup was brought up rather independently by the groups opposing to Allende, and the usual "OMG TEH CIA-backed up coup" label that is put on this isn't that accurate, but all in all, the US did partake in the whole deal, and they did cover-up the ensuing human right abuses.

Allende certainly wasn't the most brilliant president out there, but 3,000 dead and 30,000 tortured were NOT a reasonable price to pay for the end of his crappy government.

By the way, since 1990 September 11th is an important date in this country, when stupid teenagers conmemorate this decisive moment on Chilean history by throwing molotovs at police cars and doing stupid shit in general. Ah, what a lovely legacy.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/11/05 04:51 PM, red_skunk wrote: It was $11 million per year, and this was direct funding of military and top opposition leaders.

OK, fine. I did get it wrong. But so the hell did you.

"One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972."

A single year, not per year. Work on the reading comprehension.

The people who went on to overthrow Allende. In addition, the US purposely stopped necessary aid for a singularly political reason, and actively worked to debilitate the Chilean economy.

Oh, so wait. We are SUPPOSED to give aid to a regime we are not happy with. Gimme a fuckin break. I dont remember anyone bitching out the US for not giving aid to poor old USSR and letting it "destabilize" itself.

Despite all of the US's efforts, the majority of the population still supported Allende at the time of the coup. Work on your reading comprehension. And read up on the subject a little more, why don't you. Allende was only in power for three years.

Excuse me, Mr. Fuckin important. I did miss the part on the bottom, excuse me. No reason to act all self important and like you are some God.

And yes, I admit I know little of this matter. And yes, I did know he was only in power for three years. I just managed to mix around a bunch of different information into one garbeled sentence (I could explain exactly how this happened if you SO need to know). Yes, I fucked up here. Happy, Mr. Jackass?

Oh, and yes. Please cite where it says Allende is supported. I just have not read it. I am not doubting you I just cannot find anything for or against it.

[fli]

At 9/11/05 05:16 PM, Empanado wrote: Isabel Allende is a total García Márquez rip-off. :(

Eh...
I liked House of Spirits over 100 Years of Solitude.
But then again,

Reading the end of 100 Years of Solitude totally made my back shiver.

[Jimsween]

At 9/11/05 05:15 PM, lapis wrote: One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972.
The generals were against Allende, so if US wanted to get rid of Allende it would be wise to fund those that opposed him.

Haha. Okay, do you have any idea how much one tank costs? Or one jet fighter? 11 million is nothing.

And they did. The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public.

But as I said before, the air we gave to Pinochet was in line with the aid we were giving to other third world nations, it wasn't particularily large as it was prior to Allende, when we were trying to support Chile's government.

With a pro-US dictator in power who has the support of the military there's no need to give more aid as the threat of communists taking over has gotten smaller.

Haha, this is where the pro-conspiracy peoples argument gets sloppy. For some reason the US can force a coup with just a few million dollars, yet Pinochet, a cruel dictator, is somehow invulnerable to a coup. And at that, pinochet for some reason loves the US so much that even despite a lack of support publically and materially he will continue to love us forever.

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

You did, but less.

What? You might want to read that again.

I can make assumptions. Just like you.

The difference is I'm offering arguments and evidence as to why my assumptions are correct.

If you're gicing a country military aid just before and after an anti-democratic coup then you're not doing that for development purposes. It doesn't take mind-reading skills to figure that out.

And it doesnt take mind reading skills to figure out that 10 million dollars wont even buy two tanks. Besides that, it's more likely the US would be giving the aid to prevent a coup, since anti-allende sentiment was already rising and allende would have ultimate control over how the money was spent.

Then they lied, right? Because the US did, in many occasions.

None of those presidents lied about it, maybe FDR.

And this case certainly does not disprove that claim, we can very well stand for global freedom and still support a dictator, espescially when there is a Soviet threat. Cuban missile crisis, anyone?

I really doubt that Allende's Chile was a threat to American homeland security. When you support someone who had violently overthrown a democratic government then you're not helping worldwide freedom. If soviet missile were being built in Chile then I could understand America getting restless. There weren't any. The US supporting this coup was the result of the anti-communist doctrine that penalized a lot of people who had nothing to do with Soviet agression.

Are you daft or something? Do you not get the connection? We though Castro wasn't a threat either, until the Soviets sent a nuclear missile there. Cuba helped the Soviets massively during the cold war, Cuban troops were used all throughout the carribean (Grenada comes to mind) and africa. Allende made friends with Cuba, so we cut back aid, we didn't want to see another Soviet satellite in the carribean.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/11/05 06:04 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And yes, I admit I know little of this matter.

Then stop trying to sit at the grown-ups table.

[lapis]

At 9/11/05 08:29 PM, Jimsween wrote: Haha. Okay, do you have any idea how much one tank costs? Or one jet fighter? 11 million is nothing.

Oh, of course! You need tanks and jet fighters to stage a coup. Not. You can field enough soldiers with 11 million dollars along with the sum of money they got in 1971, especially in a 3rd world country where wages are low. Enough to considerably increase the strength of an army that's going for a coup.

But as I said before, the air we gave to Pinochet was in line with the aid we were giving to other third world nations, it wasn't particularily large as it was prior to Allende, when we were trying to support Chile's government.

Ugh. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (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. You don't do this for any random 3rd world country for development purposes. When you do this, you actively support them.

Haha, this is where the pro-conspiracy peoples argument gets sloppy. For some reason the US can force a coup with just a few million dollars, yet Pinochet, a cruel dictator, is somehow invulnerable to a coup. And at that, pinochet for some reason loves the US so much that even despite a lack of support publically and materially he will continue to love us forever.

Of course Pinochet is invulnerable to a coup by people who don't favour the US at that time. His officers are on the payroll of the CIA or the US army, and the there at that time no indications that the communists are about to take over. Why give him more support then he needs to stay in power, when you can stay in the background and not get attacked by human rights?

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the US really do want the best for the world, and they just accidently plan anti-democratic coups. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Or maybe you're a naive moron who will deny the most basic logic assumptions to defend his country. Maybe a little bit of both.

The difference is I'm offering arguments and evidence as to why my assumptions are correct.

Last time I checked I was the one linking to Wikipedia. Tell me, what evidence did you give to prove that the US just coincidentally armed the rebellious military during Allende's years and put his officers on their payroll as informants afterwards? That the CIA coincidentally planned a coup in 1970 which they called off and that Nixon had coincidentally spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier in 1973? Evidence my ass.

Besides that, it's more likely the US would be giving the aid to prevent a coup, since anti-allende sentiment was already rising and allende would have ultimate control over how the money was spent.

ROFL. I'll just quote it again. Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year. I mean, that was intended to make me laugh, right? If so, then thank you.

Are you daft or something? Do you not get the connection? We though Castro wasn't a threat either, until the Soviets sent a nuclear missile there.

Oh yeah, that's you why invaded Cuba in 1961, because there were missiles there. Oh no, there weren't, the missile crisis was in 1962. But of course, invading Cuba was also "developing 3rd world countries", like you said earlier.
Or not. Maybe I'm on daft, but I can afford to when I have you to make my points stronger. The Cuba example shows that the US were willing to overthrow rival governments even though they are of no harm. And they didn't do it for 'freedom' as they backed Batista who also seized power in an anti-democratic coup.
It's actually more likely that it was the other way around; Castro accepted soviet missiles because he had to show that he had friends since he knew the US would seize every opportunity to get rid of him and replace him with another dictator.

Cuba helped the Soviets massively during the cold war, Cuban troops were used all throughout the carribean (Grenada comes to mind) and africa. Allende made friends with Cuba, so we cut back aid, we didn't want to see another Soviet satellite in the carribean.

Angola was in 1976 and Grenada in 1979 so the US didn't know that Castro would do that when they attacked the Bay of Pigs. Bad argument.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/12/05 12:55 PM, lapis wrote:

Trying to talk to sween-pie is an exercise in frustration, but good luck anyways. =P

[Slizor]

The difference is I'm offering arguments and evidence as to why my assumptions are correct.

Lapis: 5 sources. Jimsween: 0

Hmmmmmm.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/12/05 04:18 AM, red_skunk wrote: Then stop trying to sit at the grown-ups table.

ROFL I swear to God you must be an alt of poxpower or him an alt of you. You both act the same.

And in my defense, I was working with the evidence I had. And still, 20 million in total or whatever it was is a pittence to overthrow a goverment. Its not like the US was the only factor in the coup and insinuating it was is what I have beef with.

[iggy101]

At 9/11/05 02:13 PM, Maus wrote: Ah, well then. 8)

I don't know terribly much about the coup, other than bits and pieces. I don't think you can really count Isabel Allende's book, The House of Spirits. :\

Care to fill us in on your thoughts concerning the matter? :)

house of sprites?! is that place a fucking flash group?

[Trick]

IT WAS ALL FUCKING GORGE BUSHES FAULT !!!!! BITCH ASS FUCKER

[Empanado]

At 9/12/05 08:05 PM, West_CoastShadow wrote: IT WAS ALL FUCKING GORGE BUSHES FAULT !!!!! BITCH ASS FUCKER

READ BEFORE POSTING, DUMBASS.