Touchmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I think the US State Department's own report into the the affair (The Church Report) should be enough to show that 90% of your claims are inaccurate or just plain wrong.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp
'After the March 1973 elections, in which opposition forces failed to achieve the two thirds majority in the Senate that might have permitted them to impeach Allende and hold new elections, the U.S. Government re-assessed its objectives. There seemed little likelihood of a successful military coup, but there did appear to be a possibility that increasing unrest in the entire country might induce the military to re-enter the Allende government in order to restore order.'
So about that you were wrong, unless of course you know more than the US State Department (I bet you probably think you do knowing your evident delusion)
'September 13 The new military government names Army Commander Pinochet President and dissolves Congress.
September- October The Junta declares all Marxist political parties October illegal and places all other parties in indefinite recess. Press censorship is established, as are detention facilities for opponents of the new regime. Thousands of casualties are reported, including summary executions.'
Why exactly did he need to dissolve congress (which by your account EXPLICITLY AUTHORISED a violent coup - despite your inability to highlight the unambiguous wording that orders this..) which was majority opposed to Allende? Why did he need to establish media censorship (despite the fact that most media was owned by big business and virulently anti-Allende)? Why did he need to place all other parties, even those that supposedly supported his actions, in indefinite recess (a recess that lasted 17 years)?
'1975
June 20 Pinochet declares there "will be no elections in Chile during my lifetime nor in the lifetime of my successor".
July 4 Chile refuses to allow the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to enter the country.
October 7 The U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports "with profound disgust" the use of torture as a matter of policy and other serious violations of human rights in Chile.'
Sounds like he was definitely dedicated to returning the country to Democracy and would have done it of his own free will without massive external and internal pressure! Thankfully, like he was over so many things, he was wrong.
'The next National Intelligence Estimate came out in June 1972. The prospects for the continuation of democracy in Chile appeared to be better than at any time since Allende's inauguration. The NIE stated that the traditional political system in Chile continued to demonstrate remarkable resiliency. Legislative, student, and trade union elections continued to take place in normal fashion with pro-govenment forces accepting the results when they were adverse.' The NIE noted that the Christian Democratic Party and the National Party had used their combined control of both Houses of Congress to stall government iniciatives and to pass legislation designed to curtail Allende's powers. In addition, the opposition news media had been able to resist government intimidation and persisted in denouncing the government. The NIE concluded that the most likely course of events in Chile for the next year or so would be moves by Allende toward slowing the pace of his revolution in order to accommodate the opposition and to preserve the gains he had already made.'
'CIA documents in 1973 acknowledge that El Mercurio and, to a lesser extent, the papers belonging to opposition political parties, were the only publications under pressure from the government' (and it must be noted that all these media were shown by the report to have been supplied with huge sums of money by the CIA to spread anti-government propaganda, so the governments aggressive attitude to them was somewhat justified - if a foreign government was paying, say, the NYTimes to publish anti-Bush propaganda, how long do you think they would let it lie?)
So just over a year before the coup, and nearly two years into the presidency, according to US intelligence, not only was Allende's Chile not moving towards dictatorship, but prospects for democracy were healthier than they had been at any time during his presidency.. (note there is no mention of any human rights abuses, unlike the Intelligence reports from Pinochet's rule).. sounds tyrannical.. depsite the reports of government intimidation of the media (and this was not violent intimidation, but threats to suspend newspapers that were accused of promoting social unrest by calling for nationwide strikes), they were still vocally opposing the government, which ahrdly sounds like they were under stalinist totalitarianism, and the best US intelligence suggests that he was trying to accomodate the opposition -again, hardly sounds tyrannical, unless you are a blinkered fascist who believes extremist propaganda, like you, Titus.
'A 1971 NIE predicted that although the Soviet Union would continue to cultivate channels of influence into Allende's government through the Chilean Communist Party, it would probably be unsure of its ability to make a decisive impact on key issues given Allende's desire for an independent posture.'
'However, the pattern of Chilean-Cuban relations was described in a 1971 NIE as one of ideological distance and closer economic ties. The NIE stated that despite Allende's long-standing personal relationship with Castro, he had refrained from excessive overtures to him.'
'Chile NIEs in 1971 and 1972 emphasized that Allende was charting an independent, nationalistic course, both within the hemisphere and internationally. Allende was, in short, committed to a policy of non-alignment.'
'The Note concluded by predicting that it was unlikely that Allende would provide financial support or training to facilitate the export of insurgency. A 1972 NIE stated that Allende had gone to great lengths to convince his Latin American neighbors that he did not share Castro's revolutionary goals'
'The most direct statement concerning the threat an Allende regime would pose to the United States was contained in a CIA Intelligence Memorandum, issued shortly after Allende's September 4 election victory. The Memorandum summarized the views of the Interdepartmental Group for Inter-American Affairs, which prepared the response to National Security Study Memorandum 97. The Group, made up of officials representing CIA, State, Defense, and the White House, concluded that the United States had no vital interests within Chile, the world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende regime, and an Allende victory in Chile would not pose any likely threat to the peace of the region. '
'Although the major problem concerning U.S.-Chilean relations continued to be that of compensation for the nationalization of U.S. companies, the 1972 NIE stated that Allende had taken pains to publicly stress his desire for amicable relations. A 1973 NIE concluded that Allende had kept lines open to Washington on possible Chilean compensation for expropriated U.S. copper companies.'
So in actual fact the country posed no threat to the US or others, and in fact was trying to pursue a friendly relationship with the US, despite the lie that it was going to become a soviet colony in the US's own hemisphere...
The fact that this document shows up most of your points as total fallacies (so you couldnt impeach the president then, despite what the people at the US State Department say?), and mentions Pinochet's widespread human rights abuses but does not mention any committed by Allende's government, although it was written by the government of a country opposed to allende, and the only piece of evidence you keep going back to is a document written by Allende's political enemies, which neither explicitly calls for a coup by the army or manages to state evidence of any precise incidents of human rights abuses, speaks volumes about either your level of ignorance or willing to fabricate ideological nonsense.
Revisionist appeaser of tyrants.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp
'After the March 1973 elections, in which opposition forces failed to achieve the two thirds majority in the Senate that might have permitted them to impeach Allende and hold new elections, the U.S. Government re-assessed its objectives. There seemed little likelihood of a successful military coup, but there did appear to be a possibility that increasing unrest in the entire country might induce the military to re-enter the Allende government in order to restore order.'
So about that you were wrong, unless of course you know more than the US State Department (I bet you probably think you do knowing your evident delusion)
'September 13 The new military government names Army Commander Pinochet President and dissolves Congress.
September- October The Junta declares all Marxist political parties October illegal and places all other parties in indefinite recess. Press censorship is established, as are detention facilities for opponents of the new regime. Thousands of casualties are reported, including summary executions.'
Why exactly did he need to dissolve congress (which by your account EXPLICITLY AUTHORISED a violent coup - despite your inability to highlight the unambiguous wording that orders this..) which was majority opposed to Allende? Why did he need to establish media censorship (despite the fact that most media was owned by big business and virulently anti-Allende)? Why did he need to place all other parties, even those that supposedly supported his actions, in indefinite recess (a recess that lasted 17 years)?
'1975
June 20 Pinochet declares there "will be no elections in Chile during my lifetime nor in the lifetime of my successor".
July 4 Chile refuses to allow the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to enter the country.
October 7 The U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports "with profound disgust" the use of torture as a matter of policy and other serious violations of human rights in Chile.'
Sounds like he was definitely dedicated to returning the country to Democracy and would have done it of his own free will without massive external and internal pressure! Thankfully, like he was over so many things, he was wrong.
'The next National Intelligence Estimate came out in June 1972. The prospects for the continuation of democracy in Chile appeared to be better than at any time since Allende's inauguration. The NIE stated that the traditional political system in Chile continued to demonstrate remarkable resiliency. Legislative, student, and trade union elections continued to take place in normal fashion with pro-govenment forces accepting the results when they were adverse.' The NIE noted that the Christian Democratic Party and the National Party had used their combined control of both Houses of Congress to stall government iniciatives and to pass legislation designed to curtail Allende's powers. In addition, the opposition news media had been able to resist government intimidation and persisted in denouncing the government. The NIE concluded that the most likely course of events in Chile for the next year or so would be moves by Allende toward slowing the pace of his revolution in order to accommodate the opposition and to preserve the gains he had already made.'
'CIA documents in 1973 acknowledge that El Mercurio and, to a lesser extent, the papers belonging to opposition political parties, were the only publications under pressure from the government' (and it must be noted that all these media were shown by the report to have been supplied with huge sums of money by the CIA to spread anti-government propaganda, so the governments aggressive attitude to them was somewhat justified - if a foreign government was paying, say, the NYTimes to publish anti-Bush propaganda, how long do you think they would let it lie?)
So just over a year before the coup, and nearly two years into the presidency, according to US intelligence, not only was Allende's Chile not moving towards dictatorship, but prospects for democracy were healthier than they had been at any time during his presidency.. (note there is no mention of any human rights abuses, unlike the Intelligence reports from Pinochet's rule).. sounds tyrannical.. depsite the reports of government intimidation of the media (and this was not violent intimidation, but threats to suspend newspapers that were accused of promoting social unrest by calling for nationwide strikes), they were still vocally opposing the government, which ahrdly sounds like they were under stalinist totalitarianism, and the best US intelligence suggests that he was trying to accomodate the opposition -again, hardly sounds tyrannical, unless you are a blinkered fascist who believes extremist propaganda, like you, Titus.
'A 1971 NIE predicted that although the Soviet Union would continue to cultivate channels of influence into Allende's government through the Chilean Communist Party, it would probably be unsure of its ability to make a decisive impact on key issues given Allende's desire for an independent posture.'
'However, the pattern of Chilean-Cuban relations was described in a 1971 NIE as one of ideological distance and closer economic ties. The NIE stated that despite Allende's long-standing personal relationship with Castro, he had refrained from excessive overtures to him.'
'Chile NIEs in 1971 and 1972 emphasized that Allende was charting an independent, nationalistic course, both within the hemisphere and internationally. Allende was, in short, committed to a policy of non-alignment.'
'The Note concluded by predicting that it was unlikely that Allende would provide financial support or training to facilitate the export of insurgency. A 1972 NIE stated that Allende had gone to great lengths to convince his Latin American neighbors that he did not share Castro's revolutionary goals'
'The most direct statement concerning the threat an Allende regime would pose to the United States was contained in a CIA Intelligence Memorandum, issued shortly after Allende's September 4 election victory. The Memorandum summarized the views of the Interdepartmental Group for Inter-American Affairs, which prepared the response to National Security Study Memorandum 97. The Group, made up of officials representing CIA, State, Defense, and the White House, concluded that the United States had no vital interests within Chile, the world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende regime, and an Allende victory in Chile would not pose any likely threat to the peace of the region. '
'Although the major problem concerning U.S.-Chilean relations continued to be that of compensation for the nationalization of U.S. companies, the 1972 NIE stated that Allende had taken pains to publicly stress his desire for amicable relations. A 1973 NIE concluded that Allende had kept lines open to Washington on possible Chilean compensation for expropriated U.S. copper companies.'
So in actual fact the country posed no threat to the US or others, and in fact was trying to pursue a friendly relationship with the US, despite the lie that it was going to become a soviet colony in the US's own hemisphere...
The fact that this document shows up most of your points as total fallacies (so you couldnt impeach the president then, despite what the people at the US State Department say?), and mentions Pinochet's widespread human rights abuses but does not mention any committed by Allende's government, although it was written by the government of a country opposed to allende, and the only piece of evidence you keep going back to is a document written by Allende's political enemies, which neither explicitly calls for a coup by the army or manages to state evidence of any precise incidents of human rights abuses, speaks volumes about either your level of ignorance or willing to fabricate ideological nonsense.
Revisionist appeaser of tyrants.
Last edited: