• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

Is this a fair and accurate analogy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • No

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Maybe (if other conditions were present)

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Not even close!

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Total voters
    16

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies

The purpose of this thread, is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the gullability of some American's and the failure of the mainstream (corporate) media in disseminating the truth of our foreign policy, which has resulted in the suppression of the Marketplace of Ideas.

The proof of this can be illustrated in this basic premise...
...the Party Line...becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.
It should be noted, in discussing the following scenario, is the concept of American propaganda. Many on this board echo this behavior like Pavlov's Dog. This is the formula...
This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.
If we are to put things in perspective with Iran and the seizure of British sailors, we must look at the shoe on the other foot.

Now the scenario for the thread...
What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?
Putting the Iran Crisis in Context
By Noam Chomsky


...how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?
Is this a fair and accurate analogy?

Is this the air that you breathe?
 
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies

The purpose of this thread, is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the gullability of some American's and the failure of the mainstream (corporate) media in disseminating the truth of our foreign policy, which has resulted in the suppression of the Marketplace of Ideas.

The proof of this can be illustrated in this basic premise...It should be noted, in discussing the following scenario, is the concept of American propaganda. Many on this board echo this behavior like Pavlov's Dog. This is the formula...If we are to put things in perspective with Iran and the seizure of British sailors, we must look at the shoe on the other foot.

Now the scenario for the thread...Is this a fair and accurate analogy?

Is this the air that you breathe?

No it's the usual Chomskyist bullshit, comparing an Islamic Fascist state like Iran to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges, Iran would be invading liberal Democratic Nations to set up dictatorships while the U.S. has liberated dictatorships and set up Democracies, and when Chomsky throws in little jabs like "called liberation of course," to imply that the U.S. has not liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from brutual tyrants and has not freed over 60 million of their citizens from brutal repression, he loses all credibility. He also implies that we are arresting innocent Iranian representatives in Iraq, again no credibility what so ever in that the people he is reffering to are people; such as, the head of the Al-Quds division of the Iranian revolutionary guard whose only possible reason of being there would be to aid the insurgency. And I love that little "vicous tyrant," section too, let's review shall we, Mossadegh was not elected he was appointed by the Shah the Shah was the head of state according to the Iranian Consitution which Mossadegh continously ignored, and according to that same Constitution the Shah could dismiss Mossadegh at any time, it was not a coup it was counter coup, at the time of his removal from power Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial emergency powers, as well as, ran the Iranian economy into the ground, the counter coup could not have succeeded if not for the fact that the masses wanted his as$ out office. Now as to the Shah, the Shah modernized Iranian agriculture and industry bringing Iran more prosperity than they had experienced before or since, he implemented equal suffrage for all Iranian citizens (including women), and was a staunch ally of both the U.S. and Israel, under the current regime the economy has been thrown back 100 years, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, and their national passtime is burning the American flag while chanting "death to the great and little satan," the U.S. and Israel incase you were wondering. "Nuclear energy programs," lmfao ya in your braw, and the uber Deushe of the universe award goes" to: Cambodian genocide enabler, terrorist apologist, traitor, Communist propagandist, and all around ****ing scum bag . . . Noam Chomsky.
 
Last edited:
I voted Maybe...as the situations are far from similar.

1) It is well understood,that Mexico is under the protection of the United States as far as its independance as a country. It follows therefore, that any invasion of the country would be met with immediate reprisals from its Northern protector. Iraq has no such insurance policy from its neighbors.

2) At present,and indeed going back into history, there are no actions against Mexico, taken by the "World Community".

3) Mexico does not have a history of attacking its neighbors in recent memory, and does not sit in a position to pose a threat to anyone on its borders.

4) Iran does not have the power to take on such a mission in the first place,and in this respect does not deter retaliation on a large scale.

If this scenario were reality, the Iranians are well aware that by attempting to take over a neighbor of the United States, they would pose an unacceptable threat to the most powerful nation (militarily) on Earth, and would be eliminated without question.
 
Originally posted by TOT:
No it's the usual Chomskyist bullshit, comparing an Islamic Fascist state like Iran to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges, Iran would be invading liberal Democratic Nations to set up dictatorships while the U.S. has liberated dictatorships and set up Democracies, and when Chomsky throws in little jabs like "called liberation of course," to imply that the U.S. has not liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from brutual tyrants and has not freed over 60 million of their citizens from brutal repression, he loses all credibility. He also implies that we are arresting innocent Iranian representatives in Iraq, again no credibility what so ever in that the people he is reffering to are people; such as, the head of the Al-Quds division of the Iranian revolutionary guard whose only possible reason of being there would be to aid the insurgency. And I love that little "vicous tyrant," section too, let's review shall we, Mossadegh was not elected he was appointed by the Shah the Shah was the head of state according to the Iranian Consitution which Mossadegh continously ignored, and according to that same Constitution the Shah could dismiss Mossadegh at any time, it was not a coup it was counter coup, at the time of his removal from power Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial emergency powers, as well as, ran the Iranian economy into the ground, the counter coup could not have succeeded if not for the fact that the masses wanted his as$ out office. Now as to the Shah, the Shah modernized Iranian agriculture and industry bringing Iran more prosperity than they had experienced before or since, he implemented equal suffrage for all Iranian citizens (including women), and was a staunch ally of both the U.S. and Israel, under the current regime the economy has been thrown back 100 years, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, and their national passtime is burning the American flag while chanting "death to the great and little satan," the U.S. and Israel incase you were wondering. "Nuclear energy programs," lmfao ya in your braw, and the uber Deushe of the universe award goes" to: Cambodian genocide enabler, terrorist apologist, traitor, Communist propagandist, and all around ****ing scum bag . . . Noam Chomsky.
I have no doubt, your hardest part, was editing this down under the 10,000 word limit.
 
The situations are different. The Iranians would understand that any invasion in our hemisphere would be as effective as a declaration of war, as per the Monroe Doctrine.
 
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies

Noam Chomsky?

You’re kidding, right?

What if Bush publicly denied the holocaust?
What if Bush publicly declared his intention to eradicate all eastern civilization?
What if Bush publicly declared and was currently taking steps to bring about an Armageddon under the notion that doing so would bring back his god?

What if the US sponsored ultra radical Christians in flying Iranian aircraft into Iranian buildings?

I reject the credibility of your source and find your argument to be based on a false premise; therefore the analogy is grossly inaccurate.
 
No it's the usual Chomskyist bullshit, comparing an Islamic Fascist state like Iran to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges, Iran would be invading liberal Democratic Nations to set up dictatorships while the U.S. has liberated dictatorships and set up Democracies...


You've got a twisted view of America. Let's play a game: you name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a democracy, and I'll name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a dictatorship. Let's go! Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, (here we overthrew democracies and put in dictators), Iran, Panama, and possibly El Salvador.


Duke
 
You've got a twisted view of America. Let's play a game: you name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a democracy, and I'll name the number of times we've overthrown a government and put in a dictatorship. Let's go! Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, (here we overthrew democracies and put in dictators), Iran, Panama, and possibly El Salvador.


Duke

A) There is no evidence that we supported the coup plotters in Chile Marxism not the U.S. was responsible for the fall of Allende who even though was elected was establishing a Communist dictatorship in Chile.

B) We did not foment a Coup in Nicaragua, we did support the Contras, however, if you consider the Sandinistas to be Democratic I want some of what you're smoking.

C) Arbenz was also establishing a Communist state in Guatemala.

D) Mossadegh dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial powers. Some Democracy. :roll:

E) What Democratic leader did we oust in Panama and what dictator did we install?

F) Same thing as E).

G) Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy rather than a Communist dictatorship proving that our defense of Capitalism and opposition to Communism worked out pretty damn well.
 
Originally posted by TOT
Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy
You're going to have to renounce conservatism before we let you out of the closet and allow you to admit you're just a "Blue State Boy" at heart!
 
A) There is no evidence that we supported the coup plotters in Chile Marxism not the U.S. was responsible for the fall of Allende who even though was elected was establishing a Communist dictatorship in Chile.

B) We did not foment a Coup in Nicaragua, we did support the Contras, however, if you consider the Sandinistas to be Democratic I want some of what you're smoking.

C) Arbenz was also establishing a Communist state in Guatemala.

D) Mossadegh dissolved parliament and granted himself dictatorial powers. Some Democracy. :roll:

E) What Democratic leader did we oust in Panama and what dictator did we install?

F) Same thing as E).


Fact-slapping is imminent:

Pick up a copy of the Church Committee report. Thanks the the Freedom of Information Act.

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

The Chilean coup was Made in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista

The Sandinistas did establish democratic elections. We overthrew them. See Church Report, Freedom of Information documents.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html

Arbenz was not a Communist nor was he beginning a Communist state, he was simply nationalizing national resources. United Fruit Co. got pissed, bought the CIA, and they did their work. See Church Report.

I never said Mossadegh was democratic. Did so much as read my post?

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/pdfs/usa.pdf

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

We've got a long history of intervening in Panama, and never for the good of democracy.

G) Every nation that you mentioned (aside from Iran) is now a liberal Democracy rather than a Communist dictatorship proving that our defense of Capitalism and opposition to Communism worked out pretty damn well.

Reactionary rubbish. The first three countries I mentioned were functioning democracies, not Communist dictatorships. Why did America, the Father of Democracy, attack these foreign democracies and establish dictatorships? Money. Private American companies stood to lose interests, United Fruit Co. in particular. These upstart nations thought they could take away from a corporation, so America had them eliminated and put fascists who wouldn't touch the companies again. Isn't it ironic, though, that America, so proud of our own democracies, obliterates democracies abroad without second thought? Your statement that America, with our higher moral ground, would not even contemplate doing what Iran would do, that is, set up a dictatorship, and instead we would make another freedom-loving democracy, was naïve to an extremity. Making such grievous errors like saying that America played no part in the Chilean coup while its common knowledge that the CIA was the driving factor of the whole affair only reaffirms this conclusion that your too wrapped in the shell of what your patriotism would want you to believe to see what America really does.


Duke
 
Fact-slapping is imminent:

Pick up a copy of the Church Committee report. Thanks the the Freedom of Information Act.

U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)

The Chilean coup was Made in America.

Read it there is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. played a direct or indirect roll in the coup de'ta of Salvador Allende.

Sandinista National Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sandinistas did establish democratic elections. We overthrew them. See Church Report, Freedom of Information documents.

Did you just say the Sandinistas established a democratic system of governance? That's what I thought you said. I can't stop laughing I really can't. The Sandinista regime was a totalitarian dictatorship, there elections were about as Democratic as those in the former Soviet Union. And BTW we never overthrew the Sandinistas in the first place we supported the freedom fighting Contras in their battle against the tyrannical sandinista regime.

Stephen M. Streeter | Interpreting the 1954 U.S. Intervention in Guatemala: Realist, Revisionist, and Postrevisionist Perspectives | The History Teacher, 34.1 | The History Cooperative

Arbenz was not a Communist nor was he beginning a Communist state, he was simply nationalizing national resources. United Fruit Co. got pissed, bought the CIA, and they did their work. See Church Report.

Who do you think was behind Arbenz's "land reforms," what was the first thing that Castro did upon siezing power? Oh ya land reforms and nationalization, that's the first step of every communist in history.

I never said Mossadegh was democratic. Did so much as read my post?

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/pdfs/usa.pdf

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

We've got a long history of intervening in Panama, and never for the good of democracy.

You asserted that we overthrew a Democratically elected government in Panama, and installed a dictatorship, prove it or p!ss off.

Reactionary rubbish. The first three countries I mentioned were functioning democracies, not Communist dictatorships.

Chile was not a functioning Democracy, Allende violated the Chilean Constitution almost as a matter of policy and it was not until he refused to resign that Pinochet was ordered by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies to remove him from power for his numerous violations of the Constititution that I will put in the post following this one. Only a far out leftist would ever consider the genocidal Sandinista regime to be Democratic in nature, and Arbenz was coseying up to the Communists and the Soviets.

Why did America, the Father of Democracy, attack these foreign democracies and establish dictatorships? Money.

Umm no every nation that you mentioned was a communist state in the making.

Private American companies stood to lose interests, United Fruit Co. in particular. These upstart nations thought they could take away from a corporation, so America had them eliminated and put fascists who wouldn't touch the companies again. Isn't it ironic, though, that America, so proud of our own democracies, obliterates democracies abroad without second thought?

Only the third nation you listed could by any stretch of the imagination be considered a Democracy.

Your statement that America, with our higher moral ground, would not even contemplate doing what Iran would do, that is, set up a dictatorship, and instead we would make another freedom-loving democracy, was naïve to an extremity. Making such grievous errors like saying that America played no part in the Chilean coup while its common knowledge that the CIA was the driving factor of the whole affair only reaffirms this conclusion that your too wrapped in the shell of what your patriotism would want you to believe to see what America really does.


Duke

It's common knowledge is it? Well that's the problem with you leftists you believe what you want to believe and to hell with the facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is 0 evidence that the CIA was either directly or indirectly responsible for the Chilean coup de'ta, none, zero, zip.
 
Last edited:
Agreement of the Chamber of Deputies August 22, 1973

The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress’s oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller’s Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration’s constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile’s Channel 9, by assaulting that university’s new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;
d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 
<<<CONTINUED>>>

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
It's common knowledge is it? Well that's the problem with you leftists you believe what you want to believe and to hell with the facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is 0 evidence that the CIA was either directly or indirectly responsible for the Chilean coup de'ta, none, zero, zip.
You mean to tell me that 8 million of my tax dollars went to "...0 evidence?"
Covert Action in Chile: 1963-1973.
I. Overview and Background

A. Overview: Cover Action in Chile


Covert United States involvement in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. The Central Intelligence Agency spent three million dollars in an effort to influence the outcome of the 1964 Chilean presidential elections. Eight million dollars was spent, covertly, in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973, with over three million dollars expended in fiscal year 1972 alone.(1)
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
And where is the evidence that that money was used to directly or indirectly support the coup plotters?
In that "Church Report" you told Duke to read.

The link is in his post.
 
In that "Church Report" you told Duke to read.

The link is in his post.

I've read it, there is no evidene what so ever, that we directly or indirectly financed or supported the 1973 coup plotters in any way, shape, or form, if you have it please present it, it would make national headlines because you'de be the first. Infact the Church Report makes no mention of attempting to oust Allende after he assumed power.
 
Last edited:
If you mean the part of the U.S.A. (Texas-N.Mexico-Etc,) that Mexicans have infected, then YES, we would have no choice to defend our Country.
Now if you mean the other Country of Mexico then I guess we would have to defend them also.
_____
And there you once again have the truth from>>>>>>>>>:2usflag: seargent
STINGER1 :2usflag:
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
I've read it, there is no evidene what so ever, that we directly or indirectly financed or supported the 1973 coup plotters in any way, shape, or form, if you have it please present it, it would make national headlines because you'de be the first. Infact the Church Report makes no mention of attempting to oust Allende after he assumed power.
What's an "evidene"?
Chile
from the book
The CIAs Greatest Hits
by Mark Zepezauer


In 1973, the CIA destroyed the oldest functioning democracy in South America. Twenty years later, the agency is still trying to deny its involvement.

The CIA intervened massively in Chile's 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970, its fears were realized-the socialist candidate, a physician named Salvador Allende, was elected president.

Horrified, President Nixon ordered the CIA to prevent Allende's inauguration. The agency did its best to promote a military coup, but the Chilean military's long history of respect for the democratic process made this virtually impossible. One of the main impediments was the Chilean army's chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, so the CIA plotted with fanatics in the military to assassinate him. The killing backfired, solidifying support for Allende, who took office as scheduled.

That approach having failed, the CIA was ordered to create a "coup climate." ("Make the economy scream," President Nixon told CIA Director Helms.) CIA-backed acts of sabotage and terror multiplied. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson.

The CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. The military's patriotism was gradually eroded by endless stories about Marxist "atrocities" like castration and cannibalism, and rumors that the military would be purged or "destroyed" and Soviet bases set up.

When the coup finally came, in September 1973, it was led by the most extreme fascist members of the military, and it was unrelenting in its ferocity. Allende was assassinated (some CIA apologists maintain he committed suicide-by shooting himself with a machine gun!). Several cabinet ministers were also assassinated, the universities were put under military control, opposition parties were banned and thousands of Chileans were tortured and killed, many fingered as "radicals" by lists provided by the CIA.

Under the military junta headed by General Pinochet, torture of dissidents became routine, particularly at a gruesome prison called Colonia Dignidad. It drew expatriate Nazis from all over South America, one of whom told a victim that the work of the Nazi death camps was being continued there.

No wonder the CIA tries to deny it was involved in the Chilean coup. It turned a democratic, peace loving nation into a slaughterhouse.
Where's your evidene?
 
Read it there is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. played a direct or indirect roll in the coup de'ta of Salvador Allende.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong.

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

I've got it all worked out for you in the next posts.


Did you just say the Sandinistas established a democratic system of governance? That's what I thought you said. I can't stop laughing I really can't. The Sandinista regime was a totalitarian dictatorship, there elections were about as Democratic as those in the former Soviet Union. And BTW we never overthrew the Sandinistas in the first place we supported the freedom fighting Contras in their battle against the tyrannical sandinista regime.

Wrong again:

n contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism. A broad range of new political parties emerged that had not been allowed under Somoza, ranging in political orientation from far-left to far-right. Following promulgation of a new populist constitution, Nicaragua held national elections in 1984. Independent electoral observers from around the world -- including groups from the UN as well as many observers from Western Europe and independent human rights organizations -- found that the elections had been fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista


Who do you think was behind Arbenz's "land reforms," what was the first thing that Castro did upon siezing power? Oh ya land reforms and nationalization, that's the first step of every communist in history.

Seeing the would-have-been future again, eh, TOT? Then I suppose that the US will become a fascistic dictatorship, because he's doing the things fascistic dictators do, he's spending way more on the military and he's attacking countries.


You asserted that we overthrew a Democratically elected government in Panama, and installed a dictatorship, prove it or p!ss off.

Don't put words into my mouth: I never said we overthrew a democracy in Panama. We did, however, support the installation of this dictator:



He had reached the rank of lieutenant colonel by 1966 and in 1968 he and Major Boris Martínez led a successful coup d'état against the democratically-elected president, Arnulfo Arias (Arias himself had led a coup in 1931). Although a two-man junta was appointed, Martinez and Torrijos were the true leaders from the beginning. Soon after the coup, Torrijos was promoted to full colonel and named commandant of the National Guard. They barred all political activity and shut down the legislature. They also seized control of three newspapers owned by Arias' brother, Harmodio and blackmailed the owners of the country's oldest newspaper, La Estrella de Panama, into becoming a government mouthpiece.
In the internal power struggle that followed Torrijos emerged victorious — he exiled Martínez in 1969 and promoted himself to brigadier general. The move came with the tacit backing of the United States, which shared the concerns of many officers that Martínez was too radical. Torrijos consolidated his power by persecuting leaders of student and labor groups and conducting a ruthless anti-guerrilla campaign in Western Panama. In 1972, the regime called for controlled election of an assembly with a single opposition member. The new assembly approved a new Constitution and elected Demetrios Lakas as president. However, the new document made Torrijos the actual head of government, with near-absolute powers for six years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Torrijos


Chile was not a functioning Democracy, Allende violated the Chilean Constitution almost as a matter of policy and it was not until he refused to resign that Pinochet was ordered by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies to remove him from power for his numerous violations of the Constititution that I will put in the post following this one.

So you bought Allende's opposition propaganda campaign as God-given fact? That's just pathetic. What's more, you don't even provide a link.


Umm no every nation that you mentioned was a communist state in the making.

I see. I suppose you took a peek into your crystal ball there, TOT, to see what these countries would have become if we didn't overthrow their democracies in the name of freedom and set up dictatorships.




It's common knowledge is it? Well that's the problem with you leftists you believe what you want to believe and to hell with the facts, and the fact of the matter is that there is 0 evidence that the CIA was either directly or indirectly responsible for the Chilean coup de'ta, none, zero, zip.

See above. You are so certain you are right, but you are so, so wrong. It's comically tragic.


Duke
 
"The United States sought in 1970 to foment a military coup in Chile; after 1970 it adopted a policy both overt and covert, of opposition to Allende; and it remained in intelligence contact with the Chilean military, including officers who were participating in coup plotting.

The CIA gave support in 1970 to one group whose tacticts became more violent over time. Through 1971 that group received American money through third parties for specific purpose. And it is possible that money was passed to these groups on the extreme right from CIA-supported opposition political parties.

After Frei's decisive majority victory, in which he received 57 percent of the vote, he began to implement what he called a "revolution in liberty". That included ñagrarian, tax, and housing reform. To deal with the American copper companies, Frei proposed "Chileanization", by which the state would purchase majority ownership in order to exercise control and stimulate output.


In the clandestine collection of intelligence, the purpose of the relationship is the gathering of information. A CIA officer establishes a relationship with a foreign "asset" -paid or unpaid- in a party or government institution in order to find out what is going on inside that party or institution. There is typically no attempt made by the CIA officer to influence the actions of the "asset". Yet even that kind of covert relationship may have political significance. Witness the maintenance of CIA's and military attaches' contacts with the Chilean military after the inauguration of Salvador Allende: although the purpose was information-gathering, the United States maintained links to the group most likely to overthrow the new president. To do so was to walk a tightrope; the distinction between collecting information and exercising influence was inherently hard to maintain. Since the Chilean military perceived its actions to be contingent to some degree on the attitude of the U.S. government, those possibilities for exercising influence scarcely would have had to be consciously manipulated."


Duke
 
Here's some more facts:

The covert propaganda efforts in Chile also included "black" propaganda -material falsely purporting to be the product of a particular individual or group. In the 1970 election, for instance, the CIA used "black" propaganda to sow discord between the Communists and the Socialists and between the national labor confederation and the Chilean Communist Party.

TABLE I -Techniques of Covert Action -Expenditures in Chile, 1963-73 (1).
Techniques Amount
Propaganda for elections and other support for political parties $8,000,000
Producing and disseminating propaganda and supporting mass media 4,300,000
Influencing Chilean institutions (labor, students, peasants, women) and supporting private sector organizations 900,000
Promoting military coup d'etat < 200,000

(1) Figures rounded to nearest $100,000

In some cases, the form of propaganda was still more direct. The Station financed Chilean groups who erected wall posters, passed out political panflets (at times prepared by the Station) and engaged in other street activities. Most often these activities formed part of larger projects intended to influence the outcomes of Chilean elections (see below), but in at least one instance the activities took place in the absence of an election campaign.

Of thirty-odd covert action projects undertaken by Chile by the CIA between 1961 and 1974, approximately a half dozen had propaganda as their principal activity. Propaganda was an important subsidiary element of many others, particularly election projects. (See TABLE I). Press placements were attractive because each placement might produce a multiplier effect, being picked up and replayed by media oulets other than the one in which it originally came out.

Covert American activity was a factor in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973. In several instances the United States intervention was massive.

United States covert efforts to affect the course of Chilean politics reached a peak in 1970: the CIA was directed to undertake an effort to promote a military coup in Chile to prevent the accession to power of Salvador Allende. That attempt, the so-called "Track II", is the subject of a separate Committee report and will be discussed in section III below. A brief summary here will demonstrate the extreme in American covert intervention in Chilean politics.

On September 15, 1970 -after Allende finished first in the election but before the Chilean Congress had chosen between him and the runner-up, Alessandri(4), -President Nixon met with Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger and Attorney General John Mitchell. Helms was directed to prevent Allende from taking power. This effort was to be conducted without the knowledge of the Departments of State and Defense or the Ambassador. Track II was never discussed at a 40 Committee meeting.

It quickly became apparent to both White House and CIA officials that a military coup was the only way to prevent Allende's accession to power. To achieve that end, the CIA established contact with several groups of military plotters and eventually passed three weapons and tear gas to one group. The weapons were subsequently returned, apparently unused. The CIA knew that the plans of all groups of plotters began with the abduction of the constitutionalist Chief of Staff of the Chilean Army, General Rene Schneider. The Committee has received conflicting testimony about the extent of CIA/White House communication and of White House officials' awareness of specific coup plans, but there is no doubt that the U.S. government sought a military coup in Chile.


On October 22, one group of plotters attempted to kidnap Schneider. Schneider resisted, was shot, and subsequently died. The CIA had been in touch with that group of plotters but a week earlier had withdrawn its support for the group's specific plans.

The coup plotting collapsed and Allende was inaugurated President. After his election, the CIA and U.S. military attaches maintained contacts with the Chilean military for the purpose of collecting intelligence. Whether those contacts strayed into encouraging the Chilean military to move against Allende; or whether the Chilean military -having been goadedtoward a coup during Track II- took encouragement to act against the President from those contacts even though U.S. officials did not intend to provide it: these are major questions which are inherent in U.S. covert activities in the period of the Allende government.

On September 4, 1970, Allende won a plurality in Chile's presidential election, Since no candidate had received a majority of the popular vote, the Chilean Constitution required that a joint session of its Congress decide between the first- and second-place finishers. The date set for the congressional session was October 24, 1970.

The reaction in Washington to Allende's plurality victory was immediate. The 40 Committee met on September 8 and 14 to discuss what action should be taken prior to the October 24 congressional vote. On September 15, President Nixon informed CIA Director Richard Helms that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States and instructed the CIA to ploy a direct role in organizing a military coup d'etat in Chile to prevent Allende's accession to the Presidency.

Following the September 14 meeting of the 40 Committee and President Nixon's September 15 instruction to the CIA, U.S. Government efforts to prevent Allende from assuming office proceeded on two tracks(7). Track I comprised all covert activities approved by the 40 Committee, including political, economic and propaganda activities. These activities were designed to induce Allende's opponents in Chile to prevent his assumption of power, either through political or military means. Track II activities in Chile were undertaken in response to President Nixon's September 15 order and were directed toward actively promoting and encouraging the Chilean military to move against Allende.

1. Track I

A. POLITICAL ACTION

Initially both the 40 Committee and the CIA fastened on the so-called Frei re-election gambit as a means of preventing Allende's assumption of office. This gambit, which was considered a constitutional solution to the Allende problem, consisted of inducing enough congressional votes to elect Alessandri over Allende with the understanding that Alessandri would immediately resign, thus paving the way for a special election in which Frei would legally become a candidate. At the September 14 meeting of the 40 Committee, the Frei gam-bit was discussed, and the Committee authorized a contingency fund of $250,000 for covert support of projects which Frei or his associates deemed important. The funds were to be handled by Ambassador Korry and used if it appeared that they would be needed by the moderate faction of the Christian Deniocratic Party to swing congressional votes to Alessandri. The only proposal for the funds which was discussed was an attempt to bribe Chilean Congressmen to vote for Alessandri. That quickly was seen to be unworkable, and the $250,000 was never spent.

And I've got so much more where that came from that I'd just love to show you.


Duke
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom