the other 9/11 - Chile - coup d'état -1973 Should America be ashamed of its support for General Pinochet?

[foadi]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

The murder of General Schneider is the act that sickens me the most, and is the biggest reason why i want Kissinger put in jail before he dies. The military in Chile had a tradition of staying completely out of politics, unlike just about every other South American country. His murder was so cowardly...so nihilistic that i'm just blown away that our government could've participated in something like that. I can't wrap my mind around it.

And the CIA threw money around Chile like it was candy in the run-up to the overthrow. My God...our government put paid hits out on foreign citizens!!!

The whole affair just turns my stomach.

lol, you make it sound like your government were saints before that. i've got bad news for you...

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by foadi

lol, you make it sound like your government were saints before that. i've got bad news for you...

LMAO...don't mean to give that impression. Where it pertains to foreign policy, the Chilean affair is nothing compared to what we did in Indochina just a few years before.

No, i'm quite aware of CIA crimes. Hell, the '53 affair in Iran is a stain on America as well.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Nonsense. If they were ruining the country, why did Allende win? Oh...because the Chileans are stupid? Allende's party were never anymore than a third of the elected politicians in Chile.

He won because he had two opponents. Everyone knows that.

Moreover, the Kissinger Cabal planned Allende's overthrow BEFORE he ever took office. That's illegal. If Allende needed to be tossed, it was up to the Chilean people to do so, not the C.I.A.

Yes, and they did do it.

It doesn't matter one iota if they were hardcore Stalinists or not. It's ILLEGAL for the United States to overthrow an elected government in a foreign country.

It's illegal to overthrow a government whether it's elected or not. But the context we were talking about was who were the targets of the junta's attention after the coup, not how the coup happened.

Geezus...Americans went nuts because some idiot tried to hit Bush with a pair of shoes, but setting up the overthrow and assassination of an elected president in a foreign country is ok because we don't like him?

I thought the shoe-thrower was great, and said so.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Britain and America's support for Pinochet was nothing short of a disgrace and now with hindsight looking back I just wondered how much compassion there was in the US for the lives that were lost as a result of a coup-de-tat in Chile and the thousands of disappearances and murders that were heavily influenced by American policy specifically Nixon's declaration to inflict pain on the Chilean economy.

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm ashamed we had Nixon as POTUS, this was only one of his failings.

Nixon? No, Kennedy.

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

As recently as 2002 America was embroiled in another attempted coup (with alleged involvement of the CIA) and as this clip clearly shows sniper fire (3:18 approx in the clip below) into a crowd of innocent civilians was used by those who attempted the coup as a catalyst for regime change within the Venezuelan Government. Many in the crowd were convinced that this 'dirty war' was instigated with complicit support of the CIA. If America sanctioned these rebels (and there is very strong evidence to believe they did) how can America claim moral superiority on the terrorists it is waging war against in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now?

It cannot.

Aside from the Imperial Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most murderous terrorist organization is the United States Government.

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Of course South American policy had long been cloaked in controversy for some time but do Americans believe that their political interventions in South America have benefited the continent overall or have they de-stabilised democracy in the South?

No. The US has done more harm and damage to those people than any "communist" ever could.

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Should America be ashamed of its military interventions that have been an affront to democracy in the region?

Of course. Americans should get down on their knees and pray there is no such thing as Karma, because if there is.......

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Chavez appeared to prefer an Obama victory at the last election (be it marginally)

Originally Posted by oberon_1

Anyway, Obama "the Muslim communist" won the latest elections. Connecting him to Nixon is quite a stretch.

The United States is what it is....no matter who is president.

Then Chavez is stupid, because in July 2009, The Boy Kingâ„¢ and his Democrat House & Senate illegally overthrew the Honduran government.

You wanna talk about Clinton and his neo-con White House Staff illegally buying arms from Iran to give to al-Qaida to smuggle from Albania into Bosnia and Kosovo-Metohija, or will that be too much pain for you to bear?

Originally Posted by oberon_1

This thread should be in the history forum.

If it offends you, take a fork and pluck your eyes out.

Originally Posted by oberon_1

There are posters on the forum who consider the civil war a current political controversy.

Where did you buy that Straw Man coated in Red Herring scent?

Much of what is happening now with respect to your economy is the fruits of your labor that you are now reaping from the sorrow and pain you sowed.

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Documentation released under the Clinton clearly shows that America planned to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Chile before Allende even took office so it is a little far fetched to appease the apologists line that it was economic policy that led to the downfall of Allende's reign when it had already been decided that whatever happened for the good of social reform in the country (and the early part of Allende's reign produced record growth) that the democratic will of the Chilean people conflicted with American interests and so had to be undermined at all costs.

Uh, damn. That is absolutely freaking spot on.

Kennedy.

Remember that in 1958, Allende came within 3% of the vote to get elected. Kennedy set up a special committee in the White House that worked directly with a committee at US Embassy Mission Santiago. You can read about that in the Church Committee Reports.

Kennedy immediately implemented a propaganda campaign against Allende. The US decided to back Frei of the Christian Democrat Party and the CIA spent $20 Million in tax-payer money pumping Frei up. This is a good example here....

[Machine guns firing]...a woman screams "They have killed my child.....the Communists!"....radio announcer...."Communism offers only blood and pain. For this not to happen in Chile, we must elect Eduwardo Frei president."

The CIA funded more than 20 such radio spots per day on 44 provincial stations; 12 minute news broadcasts 5x daily on 3 Santiago TV stations and 24 provincial stations; more than 1,000 political cartoons, and then in the run up to the 1964 Election, the CIA was producing 26 "newscasts" and weekly commentary programs. You can read about that in the Church Committee Report as well.

The CIA produced posters that showed 1,000s of children with the Hammer & Sickle stamped on their foreheads.

The CIA even paid Castro's estranged sister, Juanita --- who was already on a propaganda campaign tour around South America working for the CIA -- to perform radio commercials: "If the Reds win in Chile, no religious activity will be allowed....Chilean mothers....I know you will not allow your children to be taken from you and sent to the Communist bloc, as in the case of Cuba" (even though religious activities were widespread in all "communist" countries and even though no children left Cuba for the "communist bloc").

Anyway, we need to be truthful, and the truth is that Nixon was just one of three presidents -- including Kennedy and LBJ --- who dicked around with Chile.

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

And it is very difficult to ignore the destabilising impact American influence had in fueling internal conflict in the country.

Indeed. I've seen it first hand. I was used as a tool in Honduras. It was a disgusting experience, and I'm still ashamed and regretful to this day.

Americans just don't get it.....maybe they would, if it happened to them.

It should happen to them.

Some suits should show up in their town and harass and terrorize them.

Oh, yeah, all the apes will start talking tough, well, not when there's a friggin' light infantry company standing right behind the suits.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Salvador Allende was democratically elected by the people. We went on a covert war in Chile because he was Communist.

Allende was not Communist.

Allende was a Nationalist, like Chi Minh Ho and Castro and many others. Allende was also a Marxist, but that doesn't make him a "Communist." The US never could understand nationalism.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

After the Cuban Revolution,...

...in which Castro was recruited by the US to over-throw Batista, and CIA Agent Frank Sturgis was Castro's intelligence advisor/body-guard/CIA liaison to coordinate air drops of weapons and supplies....

Originally Posted by green_mariner

... the U.S. government tried to kill Castro.....

Because Castro committed the following Heinous Crimes Against Humanity...

Exercising Freedom of Choice While Non-White

Nationalizing While Non-White

Taxing US Corporations While Non-White

Instituting Democracy While Non-White

Expanding Infrastructure While Non-White

Initiating Land Reforms While Non-White

and...

Failure To Support US Policies While Non-White

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Now, I do understand that Cubans were fleeing Communism, and rightly so.

No.

The Spanish Slave-Masters selected traitor Cubans to serve as over-lords lording over other Cubans. The Cuban over-lords got special rights and privileges, including land that did not belong to them.

When the US came in 1898, the Cubans thought that the Americans were liberators.....they joy turned to sorrow as the only thing that happened is US Slave-Masters simply replaced the Spanish Slave-Masters.

Because of that, there were several major strikes and insurrections, and the US Marines had to go in several times over the course of about 25 years and kill Cubans who had the goddamned audacity to actually ask to be paid for the labor they performed.

When Castro gain power, he did not realize that US Corporations paid no taxes, although they should have been paying taxes.

Castro ordered US Corporations to start paying just and proper taxes.

The US Corporations refused.

Castro then sued the US Corporations in court, seeking not only an order to pay taxes, but an order to pay back-taxes owed.

The Cuban court ruled US Corporations had to pay back-taxes owed or face seizure of assets.

The US Corporations refused, so under Universal Law, under International Law, under Cuban Law, and under US Law, Castro legally, rightly, justly and properly seized all assets held by US Corporations.

That's what the US means by "Communism" --- it is a "code-word" meaning US Corporations will have to pay taxes. That is what the US feared from Allende ---- the US knew the minute Allende gains power he is going to force all US Corporations to start paying just and proper taxes owed, and might even seek back taxes.

As I've mentioned before, one of the Nicaraguan presidents was murdered in cold blood by the US for taxing US Corporations. His successor who was hand-picked by the US --- god love him -- thought he could ask the US for permission to tax US Corporations -- so he did --- and for his efforts, he was over-thrown, but not murdered in cold blood.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Please prove me wrong. I gave examples of why Allende was not particularly great. I mentioned his use of paramilitary thugs....

So says the US government who worked non-stop from 1961 to 1973 to block Allende's election.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

... I mentioned the fact that the overwhelming majority of people did not vote for him,....

The US spent $20 Million alone in a media propaganda campaign just to block Allende from being elected in 1964.

Do you see the total absurdity of your claim?

You spend $Millions in US tax-payer money on a 12 year propaganda campaign to slander and smear Allende, and then you have the gall to claim that "the overwhelming majority of people did not vote for him."

Let me put it this way....

The US government spends $Millions over the course of 12 years on a propaganda campaign to smear your name and black-ball/black-list you from employment anywhere in the US. You lament, "I can't find a job" and I say, "Well, dumb ass, employers don't want to hire you."

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

I mentioned his association with Soviet intelligence,...

So says the US government.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

But I know that I am not mistaken because Allende's goal was to create a totalitarian state and the real Allende has been replaced by a fictional martyr who was murdered by American greed.

So what if it was?

It ain't none of your damn business what Allende or the people of Chile do. It's called "Self-Determination." Look into it.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

What gave the Soviets the right to subvert the internal politics of Chile?

The Soviets did nothing. That's already been proven in the Church Committee Report.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Remember we are talking about the Cold War here when both power blocs were trying to gain influence in countries that might have become vital assets in the outbreak of an actual war. Would Chile pose a significant military threat to the US? No, but Soviet bases in Chile might have. If the US didn't do it, the USSR would have.

That is not what happened.

The US was always the aggressor.....always. The Soviet Union was guilty only of responding to US aggression in an attempt to defend itself.

Originally Posted by djacques

To say that as long as Allende was elected, it makes no difference what he may have done afterward, strikes me as absurd.

Absurd?

Why?

Three days after Allende's election, on September 7 1970, the CIA filed a report making the following conclusions.....

1. The U.S. has no vital national interests within Chile. There would, however, be tangible economic losses.

2. The world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende government.

3. An Allende victory would, however, create considerable political and psychological costs:
a. Hemispheric cohesion would be threatened by the challenge that an Allende government would pose to the OAS, and by the reactions that it would create in other countries.

b. An Allende victory would represent a definite psychological set-back to the U.S., and a definite psychological advantage to the Marxist idea.

And you can read that on Page 229 of the Assassination Report.

One last thing....the copper mines....they got nationalized anyway.

Controversially....

Mircea

[djacques]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Is it your argument that military coups succeed or fail based upon popular support or lack thereof?

It's my argument that that's the largest variable.

If that is the criteria perhaps you can explain the 43% increase in FRAP support in the 1973 elections?

The explanation for that is irrelevant; the opposition still won the elections. More people voted against the coalition than for it, just as more people voted against Allende in 1970 than for him.

As for the Christian Democrats were never part of FRAP, I think you are referring to the minor Christian Left members of the FRAP coalition.

They cooperated with the Allende government in the beginning, they were not a part of his coalition itself.

Question, why have you neglected to mention the assassination of General Rene Schneider Chereau, Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army who steadfastly held to the principle of the military's subservience to civilian rule as being sacrosanct? The man whose murder the CIA knew as crucial was critical to any destabilization or eventual coup of Allende?

The thread seemed to be mainly directed at the claimed loathsomeness of General Pinochet, and the CIA's involvement in the death of Schneider has little to do with that. I'll certainly concede that that was an off-the-wall thing to have done.

Nor have you mentioned the $2 million dollars paid by the U.S. to underwrite the truckers strike that was designed to further cripple Chile's economy?

$2 million is not riches. Both major opposition parties supported the strikers; you don't feel that was more consequential than the $2 million?

[Fear&Whiskey]

Originally Posted by djacques

Yes, I suppose that's true. But in the end, Allende collapsed because a majority of the population didn't support him, not even in 1970 let alone '73. Whether we spent $8 million or $800 million, it didn't make the difference.

Even less of a majority voted Conservative at the last British election but does that really make David Cameron a prime candidate for assassination?

Some of these apologist decrees seem rather tenuous. What you also seem to be willing to overlook is the fact that Allende's Popular Unity coalition actually increased its vote to 43 percent in the parliamentary elections early in 1973. Hardly a sign of a Government that was waning in popularity. Given the overwhelming evidence of this statistic legitimate reasons for a 'humanitarian' military coup are pretty wafer thin to say the least.

The logic you are ascribing to creates a perception of a Government that had lost support not one that had gained support. It is also key to remember that much of the problems that had plagued Chile's economy (such as hyper-inflation) had made it volatile for years previous to Allende's administration so we're hardly talking about a well run rock solid economy that was suddenly turned to mush. Allende also inherited a very bad economy let us at least be balanced in that regard. The startling statistics of growth in the early part of his tenure clearly demonstrate how integral reforms were at the time too as they clearly highlighted a gulf in what polcies he inherited and the kinds of reforms that were beginning to work.

But if this was an economic intervention things did anything but improve, especially for the people of Chile. The Pinochet years of shock therapy were even more catastrophic for the people living there. Unemployed averaged 26% and peaked at 30%. Also the population Pinochet purported to represent were no longer getting educated as Chile fell woefully behind the standards of neighbouring countries. The reforms in education sacraficed for a more aggressive, stern and restrictive attitude to inclusivity.

From 1974 he manged to reduce the total proportion of students in both public and private institutions in relation to the entire population, from 30 per cent in 1974 down to 25 per cent in 1990. This is the legacy of a morally legitimate intrusion? For the good of the people? But whose people specifically? Well the Chicago School doctrine that was implemented was only propped up by a wealthy oligarchy dependent on foreign loans to maintain itself.

These loans could be bestowed because it was the multi-nationals feeding themselves in order to siphon off profits in return. And military spending of course where spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. As the living standards and wages of the people this suppression was subsidising were seeing both their wages and living standards dwindle with soaring inequality. Women and children were tortured in the name of suppression and deprivation of rights. Are you comfortable with this?

But even if we are to buy this argument that intervention is necessary when democracy 'gets it wrong' how do you legitimise the attempted 2002 coup in Venezuela when Chavez had at the last election recieved a whopping 59.76% of the popular vote (not to mention 80-95% support in the assembly for his reforms of the constitution)? These are the kinds of landslides Presidents and Prime Ministers can only dream about and when you factor in the fact that he is competing against a coalition of collectivised interests and opponents who need to band together to in any way make these elections a contest at all then it takes some stretch of the imagination to justify a coup.

The last time it failed and rightfully so. Whatever your protestations against socialism it is what the people going to the ballot box want in Venezuela. Surely you wouldn't advocate another CIA sponsored intervention there?

[busterkeaton]

U.S. corporate interest were in jeopardy, so the propaganda machine(aided by the CIA) had to be rolled out, once again, painting the opposition as soul-crushing marxist. When the USA don't get our way, somebody is gonna pay.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Fear&Whiskey

Even less of a majority voted Conservative at the last British election but does that really make David Cameron a prime candidate for assassination?

Cameron formed a majority government, not just a Conservative government. Allende's entire coalition (Socialist, Communist, and others) never commanded a majority vote.

If Cameron had claimed the entire government for only the Conservative Party based on its 32%, second-place share of the vote, he would probably be arrested and maybe checked out by the men in white coats, because that's not how things are run. And if he managed to pull it off, I think a lot of people would probably consider at least strikes and civil disobedience if not assassination. (The Chileans tried those measures at first too.)

Some of these apologist decrees seem rather tenuous. What you also seem to be willing to overlook is the fact that Allende's Popular Unity coalition actually increased its vote to 43 percent in the parliamentary elections early in 1973. Hardly a sign of a Government that was waning in popularity. Given the overwhelming evidence of this statistic legitimate reasons for a 'humanitarian' military coup are pretty wafer thin to say the least.

The coalition still lost the election. That they increased their popularity from a bare plurality to a slightly larger minority doesn't change that.

In the U.S. I think any fair-minded person would conclude that the Republican Party is losing popularity, despite the occasional good showing such as 2010. Protest votes are not uncommon. In 1993 and '94 everyone was suddenly afraid of Zhirinovsky in Russia. If you extrapolated his party's showing at the time (1991-1993) to the present day, you would conclude that his party would be getting around 158% of the vote by now Instead he's of no more consequence than Perot is in the U.S.

The logic you are ascribing to creates a perception of a Government that had lost support not one that had gained support. It is also key to remember that much of the problems that had plagued Chile's economy (such as hyper-inflation) had made it volatile for years previous to Allende's administration so we're hardly talking about a well run rock solid economy that was suddenly turned to mush. Allende also inherited a very bad economy let us at least be balanced in that regard. The startling statistics of growth in the early part of his tenure clearly demonstrate how integral reforms were at the time too as they clearly highlighted a gulf in what polcies he inherited and the kinds of reforms that were beginning to work.

Notice anything about the inflation rate above?

But if this was an economic intervention things did anything but improve, especially for the people of Chile. The Pinochet years of shock therapy were even more catastrophic for the people living there. Unemployed averaged 26% and peaked at 30%. Also the population Pinochet purported to represent were no longer getting educated as Chile fell woefully behind the standards of neighbouring countries. The reforms in education sacraficed for a more aggressive, stern and restrictive attitude to inclusivity.

Allende's government may have had a positive effect on the unemployment rate at the cost of unbalancing the rest of the economy. But Pinochet's government, even if was not committed to social equalization, was preferable to what everyone feared was coming, the utter chaos of civil war, which the coup prevented. (There's also not a labor idleness problem in countries in the grip of civil war and its aftermath, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.)

Women and children were tortured in the name of suppression and deprivation of rights. Are you comfortable with this?

I'm not comfortable with it, but the evidence of the 20th Century seems pretty conclusive that if Allende had been ousted by the left wing of his coalition, the repression would've been substantially worse than that of Pinochet's junta. Allende never did become another Castro, but he had an awful lot of people prodding him in that direction.

The last time it failed and rightfully so. Whatever your protestations against socialism it is what the people going to the ballot box want in Venezuela. Surely you wouldn't advocate another CIA sponsored intervention there?

No, I don't, but you put your finger on it: it failed in Venezuela because Chavez was actually popular. I don't understand why, but it is what it is. The right-wing coup in Spain failed. The 1991 Communist coup in the USSR failed. The Bay of Pigs failed, for Pete's sake, and we were actually directing that one. The one in Chile succeeded because a majority of the Chilean population felt that a temporary imposition of military government was the least bad option.

I am an anti-interventionist in principle, but there are degrees of anything, and I see Chile as one of the least troubling instances of Yankee interference, not one of the most troubling.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by burdell

I'm ashamed we had Nixon as POTUS, this was only one of his failings.

how was this Nixon..?????

who controlled congress and the purse strings in the 60's and 70s'.......the democrats