Goblin's Opinions

[Moore]

Oh and Sodomites are mongers who do chicas greek.

Goblin

Not according the the Bible, or some US state laws (various definitions by state).

What youre referring to is called servicio completo in these parts.

[Goblin]

Moore-

"Semites" refers to people of the Semitic race, which includes "native" israelis (those who have had ancestors living in that territory since biblical times) however, other non-jewish groups also decend from the Semitic race, Lebanese, Palestinians, etc. I believe that both Hebrew and Arabic (and probably a few other smaller languages, like Assyrian) are Semitic languages, in the same way that English is considered a Germanic language. You may already know all of this and are probably just fucking with Goblin.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

Well Goblin knows all that too because Goblin is jewish and can't therefore be fucked with on the subject that easily.

Oh and Sodomites are mongers who do chicas greek, there's a difference.

Goblin

[Moore]

Moore,

I would not expect an uneducated right winger from the midwest like yourself to know anything about academics, or international relations which you have clearly exhibited via your brash and ill-informed opinions on this matter. I suggest you sit on your couch in Ohio or where else you hail, get fat, drink some pabst blue ribbon, eat some burger king, and continue to misunderstand why the world despises the United States. I am shocked that you havent been stabbed to death on the streets of Buenos Aires.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

How could someone like Moore possibly know what a Semite is? Is it the same as a Sodomite?

[Rock Harders]

Moore-

"Semites" refers to people of the Semitic race, which includes "native" israelis (those who have had ancestors living in that territory since biblical times) however, other non-jewish groups also decend from the Semitic race, Lebanese, Palestinians, etc. I believe that both Hebrew and Arabic (and probably a few other smaller languages, like Assyrian) are Semitic languages, in the same way that English is considered a Germanic language. You may already know all of this and are probably just fucking with Goblin.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

[Andres]

Andres,

The success and "miracle" of Chile is undeniable. Its like an efficient, prosperous, progressive island that doesn't belong to South America. I don't understand why many Argentines don't take the 90 minute flight there for better opportunities. For an ambitious worker / professional, Argentina is hopeless in my opinion.

Moore,

We should define clearly what "miracle" means. A better macroeconomic environment and a less unstable social and political frame? A better standard of living and of consumption for all social segments?

I lived and worked in Providencia and Las Condes districts of Santiago for several months. Indeed, they seem not to belong to South America. However, if you take a ride to those boroughs west of Santa Maria hills and far south of the Alameda you will find a sharp contrast, and both places are part of Chile.

I acknowledge that Chile has generally improved since 1986. However, such improvement didn't benefit on the same degree all social groups.

Behind the foreground of the seamingly Marxist-Capitalist dispute of 1970's Chile, there were several social divisions. Among them are those related to cultural issues (the global upraise of the youth during the late 60s vs the reaction of traditional values of a conservative country) and, above all, racial issues (Mapuche native descents vs European immigrant descents)

As of Argentinians living in Chile, it depends on many issues, some of which aren't very enticing. First, the legal working hours are much higher than in BA (48 hours per week) Second, air and water quality in Santiago leaves a lot to be desired. Third, a few positions for some professional profiles may provide better salaries, but the average salary isn't much better than in BA.

Andres

[Goblin]

I'm willing to discuss this issue in a mature way.

Now that's a stretch.

Goblin.

[Goblin]

Goblin,

What is an "anti semite", or a "semite", exactly?

Ok call it anti Jewish then. The classic definition is not really relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Goblin

[Moore]

Goblin,

What is an "anti semite", or a "semite", exactly?

[Goblin]

Hunt99,

Israel is probably not a good foreign policy reference or precedent as there is really no other case like it. And, of course, the power / influence of the Jews (not a bad word as you imply) is incredible.

Andres,

The success and "miracle" of Chile is undeniable. Its like an efficient, prosperous, progressive island that doesnt belong to South America. I don't understand why many Argentines don't take the 90 minute flight there for better opportunities. For an ambitious worker / professional, Argentina is hopeless in my opinion.

It's also a well known fact that the house of Rothschild had a tremendous influence in creating the state of Israel using their significant control over British politics via their virtual ownership of the bank of England to wrest this portion of palestine from the remnant of the British run Ottoman empire for displaced Jews.

A presence in the middle east to secure the oil supply is one agenda, another is control over strategic Jerusalem to which so many people attach a spiritual significance. Just like the crusaders of the middle ages and the templar guards of the Pope so do the secular political powers of today pursue this terroritory for much the same reason.

That's not being an anti semite, that's simply telling the truth.

Goblin

[Hunt99]

Subvert the democratic proccess? Thats a laugh. Sounds like the mission statement of you. S. Foreign policy in Latin America.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the many contributions made to global peace, democracy, and prosperity by the USSR and Cuba?

Don't start defending Pinochet, man. Thats f'd up.

Who's defending Pinochet? Pointing out his regime's obvious economic achievements does not equate to defending his political policies.

Allende was the people's choice,

Actually, Allende was elected with a mere 36% of the vote in 1970. Which means 2 out of 3 Chileans didn't vote for him. In 1973, the Chilean legislature voted by a 2-1 margin declaring his actions to have subverted the democratic process. Things like rule by diktat, seizure of private property without compensation, and ignoring legislative powers under the Chilean constitution. The same kinds of things done by other Marxists like Vladimir Lenin in Russia and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Not coincidentially those two countries were the most influential advisers in Allende's Chile.

Perhaps you should educate yourself by reading the August 1973 resolution of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies which outlines Allende's actions, declared democracy in the country to have broken down, and calling on the Chilean military to act.

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_te...redemoc_en.htm

Pinochet was the US governement's choice (where they had no business being involved)

When the Soviet Union and Cuba were involved in trying to subvert a country, it became the US's business. And in any event, as I've shown earlier, the US neither controlled nor frankly even had much foreknowledge of the September 1973 coup which removed Allende's Marxist government from power. It would have happened even if the US had opposed it.

what are you a goddamn Nazi?

No, I'm not. What are you? A namecaller? I'm willing to discuss this issue in a mature way, frankly I don't think discussions of politics or religion belong on this board, but so long as they do occur, I'll participate in a measured way.

Who cares what he did for the economy, he was a f*cking butcher.

No question he acted ruthlessly and in a way which offends democratic sensibilities. But eventually he left of his own accord, and in a way which allowed democratic government to flourish in Chile - and all the while allowing the country to achieve about the highest level of economic growth in the world since 1975. The record is not all terrible. Indeed, the democratic governments elected since 1990 have continued and even deepened the free market reforms initiated under the Pinochet dictatorship.

And the most hypocritical BS ever is that we are now pretending to be the world's defender of democracy. What a crock of sh*t.

Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, El Salvador, Chile, Colombia, Panama, South Africa, Namibia, and yes Iraq - all of which are functioning democracies established at least in part by US support for those democratic reforms. I could name more countries but when a person like you has his mind made up, his mind is made up.

[Moore]

Hunt99,

Israel is probably not a good foreign policy reference or precedent as there is really no other case like it. And, of course, the power/influence of the Jews (not a bad word as you imply) is incredible.

Andres,

The success and "miracle" of Chile is undeniable. Its like an efficient, prosperous, progressive island that doesn't belong to South America. I don't understand why many Argentines don't take the 90 minute flight there for better opportunities. For an ambitious worker/professional, Argentina is hopeless in my opinion.

[JengisKhan]

* Allende's government was Marxist.

* Allende's government subverted the democratic process.

* Fidel Castro spent a month in Chile in 1971.

* Cuban "advisers" helped the Allende government in its "reforms."

* The Chilean military leadership put down a coup attempt in June 1973.

* The Chilean Chamber of Deputies voted 2-1 for a resolution in August 1973 finding that Allende had unconstitutionally broken down the democratic process.

* That same resolution called for the Chilean military to take action, which they did.

* The Chilean military junta, acting through Los Chicago Boys, initiated free market reforms in 1974.

* The Chilean per capita GDP grew at 4%+ per year for the past 30 years (one of the highest rates in the world, by the way, though I didn't mention that in my first post)

Now those are all verfiable historical facts, and don't rely upon opinion, analysis, or Wikipedia articles. Frankly, if you are going to publish a college-level paper about Chilean history, you ought first to establish your facts, go to original sources, and then analyze. In particular, you should have reviewed the text of the Chilean parliament's August 1973 resolution to gain a sense of the time from a contemporary primary source (and, I should add, as well as Allende's response to it) It also would have been helpful to examine the US government's internal documentation related to the coup, in particular the transcripts of President Nixon's conversations with Secretary of State Kissinger on the subject. (You'd find that in their own unguarded discussion, they noted that they supported the goal of the coup, but were not in control of it and had little if any foreknowledge of it.

In a good paper, I'd have liked to have seen some of this. You could draw your conclusions, whatever they might be, based upon some verfiable facts. Instead, I think that you pretty much relied upon secondary and tertiary analyses and simply repeated ideological shibboleths, like calling for Donald Rumsfeld to be tried before an International War Crimes Tribunal. Not intellectually rigorous (more like a wacko blogger's musings) or even much beyond what one would read in the first pages of Lonely Planet's Guide to Chile. In fact, I doubt that Lonely Planet's editors would allow such a ridiculous thing like "Kissinger is a war criminal" to grace their pages.

Subvert the democratic proccess? Thats a laugh. Sounds like the mission statement of you. S. Foreign policy in Latin America.

The US in Chile is the same BS as the US in every other country in the world, whether it be Iraq (supporting Saddamn Hussein) or Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, or even more recently in Venezuela. Don't start defending Pinochet, man. Thats f'd up. Allende was the people's choice, Pinochet was the US governement's choice (where they had no business being involved) what are you a goddamn Nazi? Who cares what he did for the economy, he was a f*cking butcher.

And the most hypocritical BS ever is that we are now pretending to be the world's defender of democracy. What a crock of sh*t.

[Andres]

It's really the hidden domestic agenda of the US government that should be of concern to everyone.

Andres; That author you recommended writes about the activities of the military. I'm more interested to learn about the fall of the dictatorship. Any suggestions?

Goblin

Well, the fall of the Proceso dictatorship is pretty evident: The defeat on the Malvinas / Falklands war in June 1982 being the main reason, coupled with the Petrodollar financial crisis and the consequences of the "Dirty War" from 1975 to 1979.

Andres

[Andres]

* Allende's government subverted the democratic process.

* Cuban "advisers" helped the Allende government in its "reforms."

* The Chilean Chamber of Deputies voted 2-1 for a resolution in August 1973 finding that Allende had unconstitutionally broken down the democratic process.

In particular, you should have reviewed the text of the Chilean parliament's August 1973 resolution to gain a sense of the time from a contemporary primary source (and, I should add, as well as Allende's response to it)

In fact, I doubt that Lonely Planet's editors would allow such a ridiculous thing like "Kissinger is a war criminal" to grace their pages.

Your analysis doesn't hold. If Allende was tweaking the "democratic process" (what do you mean by that? And the congress voted for his remotion, why didn't the militaries take power on the spot and IMMIDEATELY called for "free elections" to secure such "democratic rules" in place?

Clearly, the militaries were following part of the elite agenda, which meant to keep a system not very enticing for the average Chilean citizen. That's why they didn't try the polls, and why RN and UDI could NEVER win a presidential election after 1990, despite the alledged "miracle" thet free market reforms created.

You should remember that Kissinger was summoned by a French judge a few years ago when he visited Paris, and the US Embassy had to come to his rescue.

Andres

[Andres]

This is quite simply nonsense. If "control of natural resources" drives American policy, why has and why does the US support Israel? The Arab countries who are sworn enemies of Israel have 10000% more natural resources than Israel does. We would have a steady stream of these resources and peace (peace of the Jewish grave, of course) if we were to abandon this policy. I could cite numerous other examples (why am I paying $2.50 a gallon for gas? But the Israel example puts the lie to the claim that America is driven by a desire to "control the world's natural resources." If Chile's copper disappeared tomorrow it would mean nothing to the US.

Incorrect. The Pinochet government inherited an enormous mess from the Marxist regime of Allende, who sought to subvert the constitutional processes to further his own consolidation of power. Prior to his overthrow the Chilean military had a long tradition of non-interference in civilian affairs comparable to the tradition of the US military. For example, Pinochet and the other military leaders put down a coup attempt taken against Allende in June 1973. Only an extreme situation of breakdown of civil society in Chile, abetted but not controlled by Cuban and Soviet intervention (in 1971, for example, Fidel Castro spent four weeks in Chile touring and "consulting" with Allende) caused the Chilean military to act.

Why did they act? I don't want to turn this into a history lesson, but to suggest that the CIA or US controlled the coup is nonsense. In August 1973, a month before the Pinochet coup, the democratically elected Chilean Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution by a vote of 81 to 47 declaring Allende to have violated the Chilean Constitution in his Cuban-inspired "reforms" and calling for the Chilean military to act to remove him from power. In short, it was a Chilean coup which had the support of the US. It would have happened even if the US had opposed it.

The overhaul of the Chilean economy began in 1974 with the appointment of Sergio de Castro, the first of "Los Chicago Boys" as finance minister. In March 1975 de Castro and his group of market-oriented economists participated in a grounbreaking economic conference with, among others, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, mapping out a free-market transformation of Chile. While I don't want to belabor the point, the point is that the transformation of Chile from socialist backwater to the most prosperous country in Latin America wasn't a last-gasp reform of a Banana Republic caudillo (who ruled dictatorially and was indisputably corrupt to a degree, but who left his country economically far better off than when he seized power, something all Chileans, except unredeemed Marxists, acknowledge)

Argentina would have been blessed to have had such enlightened economic policies as Chile has had since 1974. Chile's per capita GDP has grown by 4%+ a year over the past 30 years. Argentina's, by contrast, has grown by 0.4%. Once upon a time Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. 55 years of socialism has changed all that.

I never said that the control of natural resources is the ONLY criterium to guide US foreign policies. What I said is that Chile was important to the US in terms of natural resources, if not for the use of the Western world, at least for being unavailable to the USSR block.

Respect to the military coup to Allende, you should remember that the Constitution is there to be RESPECTED, not to be overruled. The Allende administration was pretty chaotic, but a week BEFORE the coup, the Allende party (Union Popular) got 44% of the votes, with the opposition being divided, a fact that shows that UP government was somewhat popular (at least, more than any other organization) That is, none of the alledged "consolidation of power" (something that Pinochet REALLY did during more than 17 years) implied a curtail of democratic rules by the UP government: Elections were hold and the UP didn't get most of the votes.

Besides, what Castro does or did is not of the Chilean military business, who are there to OBEY the civilian authorities (as it is in the US, mind you) and not to decide or judge in their place. If militaries believe that they can rule the country better, they should quit service and enroll in political campaigns (as many did in the US, Eisenhower among them)

As a side note, if you thing that a 4 week visit in 1971 justifies the overthrown of a whole government 2 YEARS LATER, I would like that you explain why. Chilean officials were OBSESSED for decades in trying to justify their highly-criminal acts by means of an alledged Cuban-Soviet threat. So far, no evidence (or worst, contradictory evidence)

In the Chilean constitution, as well as in the US one, there is a process for impeaching presidents who don't respect the rules. It is very curious that Allende could increase its 35% control of the Low Chamber to 44% in early September 1973, given that their government was a mess. Isn't it? The only thing that explaines such events is that the economic ideas of the Allende government were not sound, but the opposition didn't have a sound plan either that could convince the Chilean society to massively vote for them.

Whoever was appointed as minister here or there is irrelevant (Martinez de Hoz was also surounded by many Chicago boys, who wreak havoc in the Argentine economy) What is relevant is that the policies weren't triggered until the mid 1980s. The bankrupcy of LAN Chile was a study-case example of how the economy was poorly driven by Pinochet in his early years, and many social measures such as Mamelucos Amarillos didn't started until the mid 80s.

It was the uprisal of the FMRL and the unrest of the civilian society after 1983 that convinced the Chilean militaries to govern seriously, specially when Videla was being prosecuted and arrested across the border for his crimes. And as for the CIA involvement, you can visit the bunker in Boston where the CIA was organizing those actions.

As of the 'Chilean miracle", I can tell you that you will find WAY more Chilean immigrants in Argentina than the way around. Pretty lame for a great economic miracle, isn't it?

Why do you say that Argentina lived under 55 years of "socialism"? What are the basis of such point of view? Anyone in Argentina arguing that Alsogaray and Krieger Vasena followed "socialists" rules would be taken as a good comediant.

Andres