- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Oh, according to the Christian Science Monitor... I see how it is. Let me go get some Democratic Underground or Moveon articles, let's keep it unbiased, right? :roll:
"The answer is the proletariat. If it wasn't so I wouldn't be here [...] As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it. [...] Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism" — In an interview with French Journalist Regis Debray in 1970.
"Santiago will be painted red with blood if I am not ratified as President." (after obtaining 36.2% of the vote, versus 34.9% second-place, in the 1970 plurality election).[1]
(Attributed) "I am not the president of all the Chileans. I am not a hypocrite that says so." — At a public rally, quoted by all Chilean newspapers, January 17, 1971. President Allende sent a public letter to El Mercurio newspaper to deny this alleged statement.
After all, Allende himself had confided to Regis Debray “that his differences with apostles of violence like Guevara were only ‘tactical,’ plus his admission that he was observing legality ‘for the time being,’ and his assertion that he had agreed to the Statute of Democratic Guarantees as a ‘tactical necessity’.” (Sigmund, p. 140). And his own Socialist Party, at its Congress in January 1971, had stated that “the special conditions under which Popular Unity came to power oblige it to observe the limits of a bourgeois state for now” and had warned its members to prepare for “the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism.” (Sigmund, footnote 7/12)
The Allende myth - Political Forum : US & World Politics Discussion
Regardless: it's historical fact that Pinochet overthrew the government on his own accord, albeit with the support of Allende's political enemies (of course). The Deputies did not get enough votes to impeach him (they needed two-thirds majority). Pinochet sensed that the government was weak, so he overthrew it. Do you think that the Chamber of Deputies wanted to lose their jobs at the hands of this general? They didn't like him either.
The Chile Coup: The U.S. Hand
Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup
Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup in Chile
BBC ON THIS DAY | 11 | 1973: President overthrown in Chile coup
Wow, these uncomfortable facts sure are getting you steamed, aren't they? I've shown you CIA documents describing how they helped the coup, I've shown you the CIA admitting that they helped overthrow Allende, but you just say it's lies, it's all lies, and you cuss, and you deny. You look like a three year old who wants a sucker but Mommy won't give him one.
Regarding Pinochet's rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." [13]
So there you have it, folks. The United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency played a part in overthrowing a democratically elected government and establishing a highly genocidal, fascistic dictator in it's place! Can I get a round of applause?
Oh, stop bawling, little Trajan!
Duke
A) You're wrong Chile didn't have an impeachment procedure.
He pointed out that the declaration (passed 81-47 in the Chamber of Deputies) had not obtained the two-thirds Senate majority constitutionally required to convict the president of abuse of power: essentially, they were "invoking the intervention of the Armed Forces and of Order against a democratically elected government" and "subordinat[ing] political representation of national sovereignty to the armed institutions, which neither can nor ought to assume either political functions or the representation of the popular will."
B) The resolution was passed by the Chilean Supreme Court and the Chilean Chamber of Deputies BEFORE the coup so why would they be worried about losing their jobs to Pinochet?
You have not shown one article where the CIA admits that it aided the coup plotters.
Kissinger: "We didn't do it."
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
It's the equivalent of impeachment. Get your facts straight. Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't have facts.
Whoops, that point went right over your head. The Chilean Supreme Court nor the Chamber of Deputies supported or asked for a coup as you so claimed. They didn't want it any more than Allende, for they would get replaced too.
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;
My God, you are thick! I have shown it to you multiple times, many times over, and the declassified CIA documents decsribing how they were working to unseat Allende!
U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)
CNN.com - CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise - September 19, 2000
CNN.com - Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup - November 13, 2000
THE CIA HAS ADMITTED HELPING OVERTHROW THE CHILEAN GOVERNMENT, YET YOU STILL DENY THEIR INVOLVEMENT. WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE?
Source? Did he say this before or after the truth came out? Did he say this to the President, his employer?
Duke
No it's the usual Chomskyist bullshit, comparing an Islamic Fascist state like Iran to the United States is like comparing apples and oranges
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
No idea why any Iranian would want to kill Egyptian democracy but you go ahead and tell us why.
Mossadeq was under pressure by a Majlis deliberatly filled by the CIA and MI6 with placemen while the country was being agitated by foreign regimes within their territory and blockaded from without. Read the CIA report.
Moreover its quite easy to see why almost everyone would vote Yes in that referendum.
If you think that 99.9% of the Iranian people voted to kill Democracy then you're really not worth talking to because anyone that brain washed by leftist propaganda will never except the fact that Mossadeq was a tyrant.
Really? Is there an independent international judgement willing to back that up? Stabbed the Brits in the back, quite a statement, do you actually know any of the history of the Iranian oil concession? Remember to get the country right before you start reading though.Quote:
Gee whiz ToT, a government excercising its national sovereignty over its own resources, how terrible. I guess national sovereignty applies only in the rest of the world, not in Iran or the US. What a shame for you guys.
That was not Iranian property, the oil was there's, the refineries were British, if it had not been for the fact that Mossadeq stabbed the Brits in the back after they built the Iranian refineries then the blockade would never have occurred. Iran has one person to blame for the blockade and that is Mossadeq.
Really says who? Gonna expand on that bland statement? You seem awfully willing to give the last Shah every benefit of the doubt yet none for Mossadeq - bet I can guess why.Quote:
During his time in office he won support in the Majlis for tinkering with the system of representation - changing the Senate tenure from 6 to 2 years for example. This can be looked at as some attempt to subvert democracy however, you can also see it as his moves to reform an antiquated system.
Dissolving congress and declaring oneself dictator can not be looked at in any other way but to destroy Democracy.
No what the Shah did was extend his powers over the country without any support, as said. Would you be happy with Bush doing the same?Quote:
It should also be noted that Shah not long before had extended his powers over the country without any support.
The Shah never dissolved parliament.
Quote:
Restored democracy eh? That sounds nice. I guess you mean normal elections, no censorship and so state sponsored repression. Is what they had under the Shah going on in your country? Explains quite alot really.
Not only did the Shah restore Democracy but he gave equal suffrage for the first and last time in Iranian history
Quote:
Really ToT. Massive hatred for Mossadeq. Can you prove it that he was hated by the majority of the country?
Yep it's all outlined right here:
http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf
:lol: Again you show your ignorance. The Shah didnt recruit the CIA and MI6 to the plot, they recruited him to the plot.Quote:
Moreover, if so why need covert CIA and MI6 action then?
Why did the Shah want U.S. and U.K. aid? Well one would want all the help you could get when confronted by a tyrant like Mossadeq.
Quote:
Cant see why he'd want to pay attention to the Egyptian constitution, but feel free to make you case.
I mispoke but regardless the point still stands, the Iranian Constitution was the most liberal and the ME and you just said you thought it would be a good thing to do. Why do you hate Democracy so much?
Quote:
'Bla bla bla'? Thats your argument ToT? Gee I thought you were pretty good at this, guess not. Lets see if you can actually answer these points some time, but in the meantime I'll just be happy if you can remember what country your bs'g about.
I did answer the points, bottom line you support leftist tyrant and would justify dissolving parliament and declaring someone dictator by way of fraudulent referendums so long as you supported their political views.
Those votes were not to kill Iranian democracy, in fact even if they were they didnt say it on the ballot. Therefore a 99.9% is quite possible, especially given the other choice.
Save the insults about brainwashing for someone who cares.
Really? Is there an independent international judgement willing to back that up? Stabbed the Brits in the back, quite a statement, do you actually know any of the history of the Iranian oil concession? Remember to get the country right before you start reading though.
Really says who? Gonna expand on that bland statement? You seem awfully willing to give the last Shah every benefit of the doubt yet none for Mossadeq - bet I can guess why.
No what the Shah did was extend his powers over the country without any support, as said. Would you be happy with Bush doing the same?
This is getting interesting, please tell us all about this democracy the Shah brought in. Women's suffrage for the last time? Sure you know what you're talking about ToT? Remember its Iran not Egypt.
Wow thats wonderful, a peice written by the child of the very man who was installed in place of Mossadeq. What else do you expect? Why not just read the CIAs own report?
Specifically why not just read Kermit Roosevelt's own account in his own book were he describes drinking with his CIA buddies while their bribed Iranians were marching through the streets. Is that the support you're talking about ToT? :lol:
:lol: Again you show your ignorance. The Shah didnt recruit the CIA and MI6 to the plot, they recruited him to the plot.
Because you were talking about Egypt. Why wouldnt Mossadeq ignore the Egyptian constitution?
There's a big difference between typing Egypt and typing Iran, mixing the two up is surely proof that you lumo these countries together and think very little on the subject at hand but to further your tenuous ideological ends.
'bla bla bla' and 'bottom line' are no answers ToT. What if I simply answered with 'bottom line you support right wing tyrants and the machinations of Western powers intent on securing their oil interests at the expense of every person and every ideal they claim to hold'. Its a general statement, not an answer to points made.
It's not the equivalent of an impeachment procedure, the resolution of which Allende was referring to that called upon the military to end Allende's rule was as close to an impeachment procedure as they had.
You have no idea what you're talking about the resolution was an appeal to the military to remove Allende by force, what do you think that resolution was for?
The resolution was a call for Allende's forcable removal from power.
The CIA has never admitted supporting the coup plotters in any way and there is no evidence that we did.
Twenty-five years ago, tanks rumbled through the streets of Chile, terrified civilians were lined up before firing squads at the National Stadium, the elected president was dead.
Yet, at Richard Nixon's White House, the events were a cause for celebration, a culmination of three years of covert operations, propaganda and economic sabotage.
Newly declassified U.S. government records put Washington's role in the Chilean coup in sharper focus than ever before. The papers also shed light on corners of the story that previously had been suspected, but not proven.
The documents describe how an angry Nixon demanded a coup, if necessary, to block the inauguration of Marxist Salvador Allende following his victory in the 1970 Chilean elections.
The documents reveal that an early coup plan -- known as "Track II" -- continued through the assassination of pro-constitutional Chilean Gen. Rene Schneider, who was gunned down by military plotters on Oct. 22, 1970.
The fuller documentary record contradicts the long-standing claim by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that "Track n" was shut down a week before Schneider's murder.
After Allende's inauguration, Nixon did not give up. The documents detail what his administration did to make the Chilean economy "scream," how the CIA spread "black" propaganda, and how Washington finally goaded the Chilean army into the coup of 1973.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Chile Coup_USHand.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309A.htmlThirty years ago on September 11, 1973, the Chilean military led by General Augusto Pinochet, crushed the democratically elected Unidad Popular government of Salvador Allende.
The objective was to replace a progressive, democratically elected government by a brutal military dictatorship.
The military coup was supported by the CIA. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a direct role in the military plot. (For details see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KOR309A.html and references below).
In the weeks leading up the coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile's top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad. The undercover role the Nixon administration is amply documented
September 11, 1998 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country that Chilean poet Pablo Neruda described as "a long petal of sea, wine and snow"; because of CIA covert intervention in Chile, and the repressive character of General Pinochet's rule, the coup became the most notorious military takeover in the annals of Latin American history.
Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him," prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate. Since the coup, however, few U.S. documents relating to Chile have been actually declassified- -until recently. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, and other avenues of declassification, the National Security Archive has been able to compile a collection of declassified records that shed light on events in Chile between 1970 and 1976.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
BBC--Reports claimed thousands had died - but the military junta said fewer than 100 people lost their lives in the CIA-backed uprising.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/11/newsid_3199000/3199155.stm
CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins.
It also disclosed for the first time a CIA payment to secret police head Gen. Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, the head of the military regime's feared secret police, whom the CIA knew to be involved in post-Allende human rights abuses.
Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup
Get your head out your derriére. The vote that would have removed him from power legally failed. Their name for it is not "impeachment", but the premise is similar: removing the president from office. You seem to think that everyone in Chile was just begging for him to be removed by Pinochet; this is patently false. The Chilean government did not want the military under Pinochet to remove him, that was the last thing they wanted, because they were a democracy and he was going to make a dictatorship.
It was for the opposition parties by the opposition parties: they were so steamed that they weren't able to impeach him, that they railed against him a little bit. It happens all the time. Sure, they wanted him removed. Of course they didn't want the executive branch controlled by their opposition. But I can tell you one thing they didn't want and never supported: A military coup destroying their democracy and replacing it with a fascistic dictatorship (which you seem to be going to no end to defend).
Why are you so adamant on defending a position for which you have no facts and on which all of the facts are against you?
You. Are. Wrong.
U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)
Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup
U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)
CNN.com - CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise - September 19, 2000
CNN.com - Documents reveal U.S. funding for Chile coup - November 13, 2000
"We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible. — Henry Kissinger conversing with President Nixon about the coup.
No, they didn't "do it". Of course not. Pinochet "did it". We helped. It's that simple.
And then there's this.
U.S. Dept. of State FOIA - Church Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973)
The Senate document detailing the CIA's role in the coup, their involvement. Irrefutable fact. I have already shown you them, the facts that the CIA was involved in the coup, straight from the horse's mouth. You can accept these facts or you can deny them. That is up to you. There is one choice that will make you look considerably less like an idiot, but I'm not telling you which.
Duke
Apparently you didn't read the resolution it was a direct appeal to the Chilean military to remove Allende from power.
C) It was Allende that killed Democracy in Chile.
Show me where we funded,
According to a chronology of 40 Committee meetings, the Committee met on 23 separate occasions between March 1970 and October 1973 to authorize funds for covert activities in Chile(9). During this period, the Committee authorized a total of $8.8 million for CIA covert activities in Chile. Of this amount, $6.5 million was spent.
The range of CIA activities in Chile approved by the 40 Committee included "spoiling" operations against Allende prior to the September 4th election, assistance to Chilean political parties, a contingency fund for Ambassador Korry's use to influence the October 24 congressional vote, purchase of a Chilean radio station to be used as a political opposition instrument against Allende, assistance to specific political candidates, emergency aid to keep the Santiago paper, El Mercurio, afloat, and support for an anti-Allende businessmen's association.
armed,
The CIA attempted, directly, to foment a military coup in Chile. It passed three weapons to a group of Chilean officers who plotted a coup.
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.
or supported the coup plotters,
the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it.
Ya he states flatly that "we didn't do it," IE we didn't support the coup plotters those conditions he was referring to were denying Chile loans, and funding opposition political and media outlets.
On September 16, 1973, after Pinochet had assumed power, the following exchange about the coup took place between U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon:
Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.[9]
Dude you can post the same crap all you want and I will give you the exact same response everytime;
No need to repeat yourself. Did Allende's political opposition want him out of power? Of course. Would they support a violent removal of power? Yes, they were that radical. But did they support the total destruction of the Chilean government to be replaced by a fascistic dictatorship ruled by a genocidal despot? Hell no. They did not support this coup.
So, when Pinochet overthrew the government and destroyed democracy, he really wasn't doing anything at all? Right. You sound more and more like the lawyer who defends the rapist by saying that the rape victim was asking for it.
We set the stage. We made the conditions as great as possible, so sayeth Kissinger.
Wow, look at you twist his words so far out of contex. Ya he states flatly that "we didn't do it," IE we didn't kill OJ's wife. :roll:
Let us analyze.
The Chilean Thing=the coup.
Our hand doesn't show=The public doesn't know we are involved
We didn't do it=The US did not orchestrated the coup.
I mean we helped them=We aided the coup.
Created the conditions as great as possible=Allowed for the coup to take place by influencing atmosphere, conditions.
It was a direct appeal to the military higher ups to remove Allende from power.
Pinochet stopped a Marxist takeover in Chile, today instead of a Cuba clone Chile is Democratic and prosperess.
nowhere did you show me where we funded, armed, or supported the 1973 coup plotters, try try again.
And by that he means we funded opposition political and media outlets and denied Chile loans and aid.
Nope it doesn't show because we did not do it.
Nope we influenced certain things within the country in order to garnish disenfranchisement amongst the Chilean populace in order for them to turn against the Allende regime.
You missed/avoided the point completely.
I said this:
"Did Allende's political opposition want him out of power? Of course. Would they support a violent removal of power? Yes, they were that radical. But did they support the total destruction of the Chilean government to be replaced by a fascistic dictatorship ruled by a genocidal despot? Hell no. They did not support this coup. "
That's laughable. I can claim that Bush is establishing a Naziesque state, but that doesn't make it true.
"The answer is the proletariat. If it wasn't so I wouldn't be here [...] As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it. [...] Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism" — In an interview with French Journalist Regis Debray in 1970.
Try again? I have posted link after link, source after source, that have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that we were involved in the overthrow of the Chilean government. You have refuted none, you have not refuted one fact that I have put in front of you. You have simply pretended that they don't exist. You ask for proof, I give you proof, you pretend I didn't give you proof, and you ask for proof. It's both pathetic and idiotic.
Not at all. By that he means we helped the coup take place. It's amazing how you lie to yourself this way.
This is a primary example of circular logic. I show you Kissinger saying we were involved with the coup,
saying that the US's "hand doesn't show" in the affairs of Chile. You say this can't be true because we didn't do it.
Do you know what "our hand doesn't show" means? It means people can't see what we have, what we're doing.
If we weren't doing anything at all, there wouldn't be a hand, would there?
There would be nothing to show. By saying "our hand doesn't show", he is recognizing that we are doing something subtle and covert. He says what that is later: we "created the conditions as great as possible."
Are you disagreeing with Kissinger on what Kissinger said? He said we helped them, in reference to the men who did the coup. That is what he said.
"Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible."
We didn't do the coup. We helped them. Period. That is what Kissinger said. We helped the coup plotters. Going to argue with Secretary of State on what he said?
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you get the flipping picture? The Chamber of Deputies wanted him removed by the military. They wanted him out at the end of a gun, to be replaced by another, presumably elected, president, or a brief de facto leader.And you're wrong, they did support the coup the resolution passed by the Chamber of Deputies was a call for the military to remove Allende from power which is exactly what happened.
B) The proof is in the pudding just read the resolutions by the Supreme Court and the Chamber of Deputies.
O.K. and how exactly did we do that? Aside from funding opposition political and media outlets and denying loans did we help the coup take place?
That's not what he said, he clearly said "we didn't do it."
Our hands didn't show because "we didn't do it," if we did do it then our hands would show, see how that works?
Then why was the first four words "we didn't do it?"
Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.[9]
Yes we helped them
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you get the flipping picture? The Chamber of Deputies wanted him removed by the military. They wanted him out at the end of a gun, to be replaced by another, presumably elected, president, or a brief de facto leader.
THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES WANTED ALLENDE OUT OF OFFICE. THEY DID NOT WANT A GENERAL TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT, DESTROY THEIR DEMOCRACY, ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP WITH HIMSELF AS DICTATOR, AND START KILLING PEOPLE. THEY DID NOT SUPPORT PINOCHET.
Every time I say this, you respond with "They wanted the military to remove him" Yes they did! But the didn't want Pinochet to become their dictator! Get it now?
Really? Could you point to me where in those documents it states that they wanted a tyrant instead of the democracy they themselves were a part of? I would like to see that.
Many CIA documents on the coup are still classified. Nobody outside of the government knows.
Yes, he did say, quite clearly, that we helped. Did we do the coup? Nope! But we sure helped!
WHY WOULD WE BE WORRYING OUR HANDS SHOWING IF WE WEREN'T PLAYING THE CARD GAME, TRAJAN?
Because we didn't. We helped.
New Transcripts Point to US Role in Chile Coup
This is a conversation between the President and the Secretary of State about a recent coup of Chile, in which one General Augusto Pinochet took power through use of force.
Nixon is wondering if America's hand shows in this issue, if people can see that we were involved. Kissinger assures him that nobody can see that. He says, "We didn't do it". He is referring to the coup But he amends that statement, "I mean we helped them." He is referring the coup and those who did do it. He elaborates: "[Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible." He is saying that we made the conditions as coup-friendly as we could, as great as possible for the coup and those plotting it, thereby aiding the coup plotters. I rest my case.
HALLELUJAH! HE ADMITS IT! THANK YOU JESUS
You are very brave, admitting you were wrong when you said we did zero, zip, nada, with the coup. It takes a brave man to admit he's wrong, I'd like to shake you hand.
Duke
The CIA analyzed all of their documents from Venezuela and concluded that we did not do the coup.
Ya through supporting opposition media outlets and the like, how do you know we didn't want Allende removed through Democratic means?
I'm not admitting anything we didn't aid the coup plotters we funded opposition media outlets, political groups, and put strains on the economy, that's why our hands didn't show in the actual coup de'ta.
No surprise there. The CIA isn't going to incriminate itself unless it absolutely has to. The documents we have now weren't given up willingly, but through the Freedom of Information Act.
How do I know we didn't want him removed through Democratic means. When you say things like this, Trajan, I wonder if you have been paying any attention at all, this entire time. Let me think: we tried to instigate a coup in 1970? That's kind of a hint as to what way we wanted him removed.
Kissinger said we helped, we helped the coup plotters. We don't know how we helped. Your guess is as good as mine.
We did aid the coup plotters. Don't play semantics with me. We helped them, we also aided them, we assisted them, we supported them, you name it. Kissinger confessed.
Duke
They admitted to directly supporting the overthrow of Mossadegh and Arbenz why not Allende?
A) That was prior to Allende assuming power, none of the documents show that the U.S. was willing to use force to have him removed after 1970.
On September 15[After Allende was elected], 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.
No he didn't you're misinterpreting him, he was saying that we helped create massive opposition against Allende amongst the Chilean public
which is exactly what the CIA documents show that we did, what they do not show is us supporting the coup plotters.
It's not semantics on the one hand we have supporting dissident political and media outlets and on the other we have supporting the actual coup plotters.
Kissinger did admit it.
Why haven't they admitted it publicly, you mean. Well, Pinochet got a lot of bad press.
People, even Americans, remember Pinochet.
The coup also got lots of attention.
The CIA wouldn't want to put itself in their category until they absolutely have to, if ever.
You asked this:
"how do you know we didn't want Allende removed through Democratic means?"
I answer with this:
Really? Could you point out where in the statrment "We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible" it says we helped create massive opposition against Allende amongst the Chilean public, and nothing more? Couldn't by "We helped them, created the conditions as great as possible", he mean gave the coup plotters tactical information, money, and other support?
The CIA documents that have been released do not show this. But Kissinger was kind enough to fill in the blanks.
Where in the statement "We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible" does it say we supported dissident political and media outlets and nothing more?
Trajan. You are making things up. He said we helped them. That could mean anything. By anything, I mean not just supported opposition media.
Duke
Parliaments get dissolved and reformed all the time ToT.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAGLE1
Those votes were not to kill Iranian democracy, in fact even if they were they didnt say it on the ballot. Therefore a 99.9% is quite possible, especially given the other choice.
Save the insults about brainwashing for someone who cares.
The vote was not to kill Democracy? O.K. then what do you call dissolving Parliament? What if Tony Blair dissolved British Parliament and declared himself dictator?
Then you dont know much do you? Considering the British had already interfered in Iranian politics numerous times decades before to get the original concession precludes any notions of the British being unfairly treated, read your history ToT. Moreover, Mossadeq even offered compensation and still it wasnt enough.Quote:
Really? Is there an independent international judgement willing to back that up? Stabbed the Brits in the back, quite a statement, do you actually know any of the history of the Iranian oil concession? Remember to get the country right before you start reading though.
I know that the British had every right to blockade Iran after their defacto dictator stole their refineries.
Quote:
Really says who? Gonna expand on that bland statement? You seem awfully willing to give the last Shah every benefit of the doubt yet none for Mossadeq - bet I can guess why.
Quote:
No what the Shah did was extend his powers over the country without any support, as said. Would you be happy with Bush doing the same?
He didn't dissolve Parliament and he didn't ignore the Egyptian Constitution in order to declare himself dictator
It's called the White Revolution and it took away power from the Islamic Fascists which is one of the main reason for the Shah's overthrow.
Quote:
Wow thats wonderful, a peice written by the child of the very man who was installed in place of Mossadeq. What else do you expect? Why not just read the CIAs own report?
Specifically why not just read Kermit Roosevelt's own account in his own book were he describes drinking with his CIA buddies while their bribed Iranians were marching through the streets. Is that the support you're talking about ToT?
Ya umm where in Roosevelt's accord does it mention the popularity levels at the time?
Quote:
Again you show your ignorance. The Shah didnt recruit the CIA and MI6 to the plot, they recruited him to the plot.
Mmmhmm because the Shah didn't want Mossadegh out of power right? It wasn't a collaborative relationship was it?
No what the Shah did was much was worse and heralded the regime we see today in Iran who learned to never be so gentle as to repeat the ‘Mossadeq mistake’.Quote:
Because you were talking about Egypt. Why wouldnt Mossadeq ignore the Egyptian constitution? There's a big difference between typing Egypt and typing Iran, mixing the two up is surely proof that you lumo these countries together and think very little on the subject at hand but to further your tenuous ideological ends.
Allright I see what you're saying, however, my point still stands the Shah never dissolved Parliament or the IRANIAN Constitution as Mossadegh had done and was doing.
Quote:
'bla bla bla' and 'bottom line' are no answers ToT. What if I simply answered with 'bottom line you support right wing tyrants and the machinations of Western powers intent on securing their oil interests at the expense of every person and every ideal they claim to hold'. Its a general statement, not an answer to points made.
WTF ever dude Mossadegh dissolved Parliament through an obviously rigged referendum and then declared himself defacto dictator in a country prior to him coming to power had the most liberal Constitution in the Middle East.
Parliaments get dissolved and reformed all the time ToT.
Then you dont know much do you? Considering the British had already interfered in Iranian politics numerous times decades before to get the original concession precludes any notions of the British being unfairly treated, read your history ToT. Moreover, Mossadeq even offered compensation and still it wasnt enough.
He DID extend his powers over the country without any support and thereby he DID ignore the Iranian constitution, while Mossadeq did not ignore the Egyptian constitution.
Come on now ToT, tell us more about this great democracy of the Shah's. If you can make a case with the Shah's democrat credentials then it should be quite easy for you to expand on it shouldnt it?
Yes ToT read Kermit’s own account. If you’d read it already you know that Kermit and his buddies had bribed numerous mobs for hire and paid off numerous members of Parliament as part of a campaign of orchestrated black propaganda. That bribed support is the opposition to Mossadeq you speak of when you tell us about how I overestimate Mossadeq’s popularity at the time of his overthrow.
plus its clear that the US & UK were prepared to go through with the coup even without the Shah.
No what the Shah did was much was worse and heralded the regime we see today in Iran who learned to never be so gentle as to repeat the ‘Mossadeq mistake’.
Yes ToT whatever you say. Really ToT why would anyone believe your interpretation when you seem to have no interest in the previous history and cant even get the name of the country right? If you want to redeem your credibility at least bring some new information to the table or a better interpretation, or perhaps just get the country right for a few more posts.
Quote:
He DID extend his powers over the country without any support and thereby he DID ignore the Iranian constitution, while Mossadeq did not ignore the Egyptian:lol: constitution.
How exactly did he "extend his powers."
Quote:
Then you dont know much do you? Considering the British had already interfered in Iranian politics numerous times decades before to get the original concession precludes any notions of the British being unfairly treated, read your history ToT. Moreover, Mossadeq even offered compensation and still it wasnt enough.
Who built the refineries? Who owned the refineries? An economic blockade in response to siezing ones assets is a perfectly legitimate response especially when those assets being confiscated severly damages ones own economy.
Quote:
Come on now ToT, tell us more about this great democracy of the Shah's. If you can make a case with the Shah's democrat credentials then it should be quite easy for you to expand on it shouldnt it?
It's called the White Revolution, the Shah modernized Iran and instituted equal suffrage to all the Iranian people.
Quote:
Yes ToT read Kermit’s own account. If you’d read it already you know that Kermit and his buddies had bribed numerous mobs for hire and paid off numerous members of Parliament as part of a campaign of orchestrated black propaganda. That bribed support is the opposition to Mossadeq you speak of when you tell us about how I overestimate Mossadeq’s popularity at the time of his overthrow.
So your saying that in a country whose economy was going to hell in a hand basket due to Mossadeqs economic policies and one in which congress had been dissolved and a dictator put in their place, that there was no legitimate opposition to Mossadeq?
Quote:
plus its clear that the US & UK were prepared to go through with the coup even without the Shah.
Why is that clear?
Quote:
No what the Shah did was much was worse and heralded the regime we see today in Iran who learned to never be so gentle as to repeat the ‘Mossadeq mistake’.
Mossadeq's mistake was declaring himself dictator and stealing foreign assets.
Quote:
Yes ToT whatever you say. Really ToT why would anyone believe your interpretation when you seem to have no interest in the previous history and cant even get the name of the country right? If you want to redeem your credibility at least bring some new information to the table or a better interpretation, or perhaps just get the country right for a few more posts.
I don't need to bring any new information, your interpretation is crap, you think that dissolving parliament through rigged referendum, and instituting dictatorial powers is all fine and dandy. It's you who has no credibility, like I say leftists have never met an anti-western dictator they didn't like.
In 1950 the Iran's Monarchy Constitution, Mashrouteh, was ruined towards absolute dictatorship by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The 1950 amendment granted the Shah the right to dissolve the parliament at any time and under any circumstances.
Simple answer to that, who had jurisdiction in the country?
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once, in May 1951, at The Hague, and again in October, at the United Nations Security Council. Both times, Mossadeq won, hands down. At The Hague, he argued against Britain's complaint that Iran had broken an agreement, saying that since the contract had been signed between a company and Iran, rather than between two states, the court at The Hague had no jurisdiction. In June 1952, the issue was again dealt with at The Hague, and the case was decided in favor of Iran.
There was no legitimate election in the Shah’s regime whatsoever. The members of the parliament used to be hand picked by the Shah not by the people’s vote and the rest was FAKE elections.
The Savak's interrogation office was established with no limit of using horrific torture tools and techniques to break the arrested dissenters to talk in a matter of hours.
The censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures and academics throughout the country. It took appropriate measures against those who fell out of the regime's line.
Universities, labor unions and peasant organizations, amongst others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by the Savak agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed the Shah's government.
Interrogation, torture and long term imprisonment by Savak for reading or possessing any forbidden books. The prohibited books were removed from the book-stores and libraries; even the Tozih-ol-Masael written by Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini was forbidden.
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any institutional checks.
Is that the democracy you're talking about ToT?
Read the CIAs own report ToT, Im not reminding you what country we're talking about or doing your research for you anymore.
No our mistake was interfering in another country and getting blowback years later.
Simple answer here. Two questions.
First I'll make it an easier multiple choice. What country are we talking about ToT?
A: Egypt
or
B: Iran
Next question;
What was the Shah's record on rigged elections and referendums ToT after 1953?
You're out of your mind, he did not, he was saying that we set the conditions which is why the first four words out of his mouth were "we didn't do it."
And the Shah didn't?
After he was elected but not before he assumed power, there is 0 evidence that shows we attempted to remove him from power through force after being sworn in as President.
No it couldn't or else the first four words out of his mouth wouldn't have been "we didn't do it." That statement must be taken into context of the CIA documents, if they are it is clear what was meant by that statement.
That's what he meant by "created the conditions."
You're the one making things up, the CIA documents show exactly what he meant by "created the conditions."
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?