Goblin's Opinions

[Andres]

I agree Andres that Liberty and Democracy is not such a good term especially when the assassination of a democratically elected official (Allende) is involved. In that period, the USA was not going to let another Americas country "go communist" (quoting Kissinger) democratically elected or not, free speech or not. Alignment with the USSR in "USA's backyard" was a serious threat (Cuban nuclear missle crisis 1962 for instance almost caused WW3) Castro was becoming very chummy with Chile at the time of Allende's election.

Are you sure that natural resources were the primary cause for such drastic actions in Chile? Copper is not oil, sad to say it like that but its true. Some Argentines claim that the US is buying Argentine land in order to take its water. Doesnt sound so credible? There was no meddling with the election of Bachelet or Lula, yet the natural resources are still there.

Thats politics. Invading a country in the name of Liberty and Democracy sounds nicer than invading in the name of oil, yes? I would rather see it called Operation Petroleum with full disclosure that Democracy in the invaded country doesnt count for shit, but I'm not a politician.

Paradoxically, the US ended up doing the same that they thought the USSR would do in the region: They curtailed democracy and get rid of independent governments, specially those less permeable to the lobby of the local US Chamber of Commerce.

Chile never had a strong industrial base, and export of crops and minerals (fruit, lumber, cupper, nitrates, etc) made up the backbone of the most important investments.

Andres

[Hunt99]

Hunt99-

The US supports Israel for two reasons: 1) The millions, of wealthy, highly influencial jewish people who reside in the US. 2) The US views Israel as an oasis of reason in the sea of insanity that is the Arab Middle East, essentially a nation that they (the US) can control. Although Israel lacks any valuable natural resources, they are in close proximity to billions of barrels of oil, and thus are a power broker in the region, if you don't believe that, see the results of their wars with their arab neighbors. Part of the reason for going ito Iraq (IMO) was to establish a new US controlled state in order to move away from only having Israel as an ally in the region. So really, in the case of Israel, it is the proximity to very important natural resources (combined with the powerful US jewish lobby) that drives the US policy.

Ah, The Jews. Craftly little buggers, aren't they? You been discussing the Jews with Bobby Fischer?.

I do not know where you got your information on Chile, but it looks like it must be drawn from Henry Kissinger's memoirs. I do not feel like arguing anymore about Chile, I have proved enough factual information and a bibliography, so I am not going to say anything else about it.

Information? From original sources, of course.

But let's look at the information, which is factual.

* 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.

[Rock Harders]

Hunt99-

The US supports Israel for two reasons: 1) The millions, of wealthy, highly influencial jewish people who reside in the US. 2) The US views Israel as an oasis of reason in the sea of insanity that is the Arab Middle East, essentially a nation that they (the US) can control. Although Israel lacks any valuable natural resources, they are in close proximity to billions of barrels of oil, and thus are a power broker in the region, if you don't believe that, see the results of their wars with their arab neighbors. Part of the reason for going ito Iraq (IMO) was to establish a new US controlled state in order to move away from only having Israel as an ally in the region. So really, in the case of Israel, it is the proximity to very important natural resources (combined with the powerful US jewish lobby) that drives the US policy.

I do not know where you got your information on Chile, but it looks like it must be drawn from Henry Kissinger's memoirs. I do not feel like arguing anymore about Chile, I have proved enough factual information and a bibliography, so I am not going to say anything else about it.

I do agree on some of what you said regarding Argentina though, 55 years of being jerked around has left them where they are today.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

[Hunt99]

TWhat really mattered was the control of natural resources, not the respect to Liberty and Democracy.

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.

You are wrong about the 17 years of Pinochet. He took power in 1973 and didn't entail any serious reform until 1985-1986. When it was pretty certain that Chile couldn't sustain merely on non-renewable natural resources such as copper, they triggered the reforms, which were helped by an International environment that doesn't exist anymore (the huge growth of the South East Asian tigers)

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.

[Goblin]

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

[Moore]

The first paragraph resumes much of the reasons for the despise that many non-Americans feel for the US foreign policies. During these years, US officials were repeating continuously that "we must get rid of Communism because it is a threat to Liberty and Democracy". However, when people in countries like Chile in 1970 or Guatemala in 1954 chose a left-wing government in very clean elections, governments that respected fredom of speech and press, the US finds an excuse to topple such regimes "in the name of Liberty and Democracy". What really mattered was the control of natural resources, not the respect to Liberty and Democracy.

You are wrong about the 17 years of Pinochet. He took power in 1973 and didn't entail any serious reform until 1985-1986. When it was pretty certain that Chile couldn't sustain merely on non-renewable natural resources such as copper, they triggered the reforms, which were helped by an International environment that doesn't exist anymore (the huge growth of the South East Asian tigers)

During these first 10-13 years, the Chilean militaries, although not that corrupt as the Argentinian ones, were seriously involved in corruption scandals typical of banana republics. For instance, some sons and daughters of Pinochet are being prosecuted and arrested nowadays because they were involved in fraud with public funds (you can read that in many newspapers during the last 2 weeks)

Andres

I agree Andres that Liberty and Democracy is not such a good term especially when the assassination of a democratically elected official (Allende) is involved. In that period, the USA was not going to let another Americas country "go communist" (quoting Kissinger), democratically elected or not, free speech or not. Alignment with the USSR in "USA's backyard" was a serious threat (Cuban nuclear missle crisis 1962 for instance almost caused WW3). Castro was becoming very chummy with Chile at the time of Allende's election.

Are you sure that natural resources were the primary cause for such drastic actions in Chile? Copper is not oil, sad to say it like that but its true. Some Argentines claim that the US is buying Argentine land in order to take its water. Doesnt sound so credible?There was no meddling with the election of Bachelet or Lula, yet the natural resources are still there.

Thats politics. Invading a country in the name of Liberty and Democracy sounds nicer than invading in the name of oil, yes? I would rather see it called Operation Petroleum with full disclosure that Democracy in the invaded country doesnt count for shit, but Im not a politician.

[Rock Harders]

Hunt99/ Moore-

At no point did I attempt to compare that paper to the background information given by either Lonely Planet or Let's Go guides, nor did I claim such. It was only a paper that contained some information pertinent to my argument regarding US foreign policy in regard to Chile and Argentina that was in discussion on the AP board- which was basically refuting Moore's statements that the US involvement in the dictatorships of Pinochet and Videla were necessary.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

[Andres]

There were some economic interests in Chile at the time, but I believe that the 1970s Coldwar political scene was just slightly different than it is today and that the ramifications / risk of every other country in the Americas turning to the left caused some legitimate concern. Have you noticed that there is no such concern / intervention now as Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, etc go that direction?

Chile is doing very well and has been for some time - it has a stable, organized, disciplined, pro-business economy / environment and low corruption. I'm not sure how much of this is a result of any political party but instead due to the nature of the Chilean people (very different than Argentines) The country developed well during the 17 year Pinochet regime (yes he is an evil mofo) Ive done some business there and it seems about 10,000 miles away from Argentina in every way. Its social security system has been studied by the USA as a model to follow.

The first paragraph resumes much of the reasons for the despise that many non-Americans feel for the US foreign policies. During these years, US officials were repeating continuously that "we must get rid of Communism because it is a threat to Liberty and Democracy". However, when people in countries like Chile in 1970 or Guatemala in 1954 chose a left-wing government in very clean elections, governments that respected fredom of speech and press, the US finds an excuse to topple such regimes "in the name of Liberty and Democracy". What really mattered was the control of natural resources, not the respect to Liberty and Democracy.

You are wrong about the 17 years of Pinochet. He took power in 1973 and didn't entail any serious reform until 1985-1986. When it was pretty certain that Chile couldn't sustain merely on non-renewable natural resources such as copper, they triggered the reforms, which were helped by an International environment that doesn't exist anymore (the huge growth of the South East Asian tigers)

During these first 10-13 years, the Chilean militaries, although not that corrupt as the Argentinian ones, were seriously involved in corruption scandals typical of banana republics. For instance, some sons and daughters of Pinochet are being prosecuted and arrested nowadays because they were involved in fraud with public funds (you can read that in many newspapers during the last 2 weeks)

Andres

[Andres]

I would like to see a good report on the past dictatorship of Argentina. I don't know anything about this subject.

Goblin

Get Robert A Potash books. That would help understand many aspects of why Argentine militaries were prone to disrupt the Constitutional rules.

Andres

[Andres]

I'm fairly certain that they do know, quite possibly more than you. Ask them (chilenos / argentinos) about it. There was a serious cause for those interventions.

It depends to whom you ask. Most people in the upper and upper-middle classes supported these military coups, but not necessarily those on lower and middle classes.

Personally, I deem these events as one of the darkest periods for both countries.

Andres

[Hunt99]

Bobby Fischer tried to renounce his citizenship while in detention in Japan. It's quite an interesting story although again completely unrelated to whoremongering.

http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/

The radio interviews are priceless.

Goblin

From the site:

Furthermore in collusion with the U.S. Government the Japanese immigration authorities have confiscated and destroyed Bobby Fischer's U.S. Passport. Bobby Fischer is still in jail at Narita airport in Tokyo Japan. Bobby Fischer does not wish to return to the Jew-controlled USA where he faces a kangaroo court and 10 years in Federal prison and a likely early demise or worse on trumped political charges. Nor does he wish to remain in a hostile brutal and corrupt U.S.-controlled Japan.

The similarities are eerie. I ask: Is Bobby Fischer posting on Argentina Private? The arguments ring very, very familiar to some of the stuff I read here.

[Hunt99]

Moore-

You did not even bother to read the paper or the attached bibliography, because if you did, you would see that almost none of it would be contained in a history section of a guidebook. Don't be such a bitter ignoramous.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

Well, I did read it, and I agree that Lonely Planet guide is superior.

[Rock Harders]

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 and swear to crush the world the next time "blowback" comes the way of the United States- in the form of more airplanes crashing into buildings, or perhaps something much worse. With your ridiculous and unwavering support of the US policies, I am shocked that you havent been stabbed to death on the streets of Buenos Aires. I suggest you get back to watching the Fox News Channel as soon as possible, to assure yourself that your views are correct.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

[Moore]

Yes I did read your 8th grade paper Dirk. You can get infinitely more info than that by doing a simple internet search. Except for the torture testimonies which I've seen in other places, your paper is probably much less detailed/informative than a Lets Go tourist book. By the way, is Wikipedia, which I use all the time, even a legitimately quotable source? Anyone can post anything on it.

You've really made an ass of yourself by posting your homework assignment on this board. I had never heard of Uof Delaware before but I'll say the 1st impression is pretty bad.

[Rock Harders]

Moore,

You did not even bother to read the paper or the attached bibliography, because if you did, you would see that almost none of it would be contained in a history section of a guidebook. Don't be such a bitter ignoramous.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler