- Joined
- Jul 6, 2005
- Messages
- 18,930
- Reaction score
- 1,040
- Location
- HBCA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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......the Party Line...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.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.
Is this a fair and accurate analogy?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?
"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?
I have no doubt, your hardest part, was editing this down under the 10,000 word limit.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.
"All we are is the air that we breathe" - the Hollies
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'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!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).
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.
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.
Sandinista National Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sandinistas did establish democratic elections. We overthrew them. See Church Report, Freedom of Information documents.
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.
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.
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
You mean to tell me that 8 million of my tax dollars went to "...0 evidence?"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.
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)
You mean to tell me that 8 million of my tax dollars went to "...0 evidence?"
In that "Church Report" you told Duke to read.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.
What's an "evidene"?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.
Where's your 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.
What's an "evidene"?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.
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.
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.
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.
You asserted that we overthrew a Democratically elected government in Panama, and installed a dictatorship, prove it or p!ss off.
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.
Umm no every nation that you mentioned was a communist state in the making.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?