The sudden assertion of human criteria within a dehumanising framework of political manipulation can be like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Apparently, Cindy Sheehan has returned to Crawford Texas (The new Camp David?) and the news is reporting a group to camp across from hers are families that support the war. Hmmmm.... is any of this sounding familiar? The opposition of the Vietnam war crept up slowly, until there was wide scale protests, then violence, chaos a loss of an era, actually. My dad served, drafted but did his duty. He got spit on when he came home, forgotten later which made my education of the trauma of wars of this type causes and really added to the joyous memories I have of my childhood. What are we going to have left for money to help these people when they get home? What plans have been made to get our people out without the crushing defeat feeling that many veterans had about Vietnam? And is it just me, or does it seem like Bush wants to get in every little war he can before his term is up? Let pray Jeb stays down in Florida.
Food for thought.
Submitted on Fri, 2005-08-26 00:39
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Joanna Nee,
It's a common human frailty to think of every war in terms of the last one. The differences between Vietnam and Irag are lengthy from geography to politics. Don't let memories imposed on you by others make you a defeatist and bitter. Our troops in Iraq and the people of Iraq deserve better.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
My, my, my. Ttrryosborn, you really need to reread my post. Its got nothing to do with geography or the difference between jungle fighting versus urban warfare. Think beyond. Ergo: "mutated Vietnam" Like all intelligent viruses' they mutate. This war is starting to divide us as a nation. Whether you like it or not terry. I never said anything about being bitter, you really need to lay off labeling women bitter. It seems to be a habit with you. I was merely making an observation from watching the news and reading reports. If you fail to see the division thats occurring, that's fine ... just pass over the rose tinted glasses when youre done.
Oh, could you do me a favor? My name is Joeanna ...not Joanna, thanks.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Love your posts, Joeanna.
God knows I opposed the Vietnam war. But you should look at some of the cold blooded history written since. The US was probably right to defend South Vietam against the Stalinist Ho Chi Minh. It was in fact in a position to win militarily in 1968-70. Its withdrawal led to the greatest human rights tragedy of the second half of the 20th Century.
The lessons of Vietnam are a lot different than conventional thinking would have you believe.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
fdbjr,
By "cold blooded history" I assume you're referring to Montagnard tribes. It would make life easier if you could be more specific. I'm not disagreeing with you (most human rights group refer to the retribution taken against the tribes as genocide), just being pedantic.
As far as I'm aware Ho Chi Minh was strongly nationalistic, who wanted an independent communist Vietnam state. He only turned to the USSR for help after the war began. Hardly a "Stalinist". Did kick out the Khymer Rouge as well, to be balanced. Not defending the bloke though (see above genocide thing).
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt Murrell,
["My argument is clear: The US encouraged the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, then supported the murderous dictator that replaced him".]
Yes, it is perfectly clear and sustained by the facts you have quoted. This will not deter Ttrryosborn from dodging the issue, it never has done!
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Brolly,
Thank you. If you want a detailed account of Britain's role in the whole sorry affair I'd recommend Mark Curtis's "Web of Deceit". In fact the book is highly recommended for a well researched account of British foreign policy past and present overall.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
I'm reading that at the moment (amongst other things). I am up to the stuff about the overt financial and political support for Putin whilst knowledge of the barbaric atrocities in Chechnya were well known within the cabinet. This was well before the Beslan tragedy.
I saw a documentary about the children from there the other day. What struck me most was the directing of their grief towards revenge and the desire to kill terrorists. This is obviously something that has been imbibed from adults around them. And so the cycle continues.
The more I read Curtis's book the more a kind of sickening disbelief takes hold, and the more any perception I had of the quality of our democracy, the freedom of information, and the soundness of our government disintegrates.
It seems, at the time when Blair was cosying up to Putin, sufficient analysis and scrutiny was simply not levied from inside or outside the government, and thus we can assume the same continues to be the case. Our governments, as we speak, are blindly cutivating the seeds of another Beslan, another twin towers, another No. 30 double decker bus.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Maz2003,
The more I read about our government, the more cynical I become. Wait until you get to "The Threat of Democracy". All US and UK foreign policy past and present makes sense after that. "The Single-Ideology State" chapter is also good. Not so much an eye-opener, more just for crystallizing what you already suspected. His follow up "Unpeople" is currently in the pile of books I have waiting to be read.
Short of watching the entire series of "Yes, Minister" I can't think of a better way of finding out how British democracy works.
Andrew Rawnsley's "Servants of the People" and John Kampfner's "Blair's Wars" are also well worth reading.
Unless you still want to believe in the concept of Western democracy, then perhaps a little Thomas Friedman is in order.
"I was having a conversation with the Prime Minister of Malaysia when he mentioned that the left-hand button of his mouse didn't work. This caused me to realise that the entire economic problems of East Asia can be solved by..."
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
I'm afraid I have long since stopped trying to get to the end of another book before I start another. Haven't picked Curtis up for at least a week. I've become engrossed in a true account of imprisonment under Sadat's regime, [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/0520088883/qid=1125673447/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/
103-2383654-2539064?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Memoirs from the Women's Prison[/url] by Nawal El Sa'adawi.
And I'm finally reading Globalization and its discontents which really exposes the reality of the hypocrisy at the center of so-called free market ideologists who are anything but.
I never got into Yes Minister. Maybe I should give it another go. I'm sure Ebay will have it on DVD.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Maz2003,
Stiglitz is an interesting writer. If you really want a good insight into the workings of economic policy I'd recommend JK Galbraith's 'The Affluent Society' and 'A History of Economics: The Past as The Present'
Never got into 'Yes, Minister'? And you expect me to take your political views serious?
The third series is probably the best, and it's in the HMV sale at the moment.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
Let's cut to the chase and forget the nonsense that you keep trotting out.
The US was only interested in a limited notion of democracy based on a government which enabled them to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq and whose economy they would largely control by throwing open the Iraq's industry and businesses to up to 100% per cent foreign ownership (for which read mainly the US).
If there was no intention of staying beyond a couple of years or so, why the large military bases which have always been regarded as being constructed for the long term ( many years not a few).
One way to control a country is to gain command of its economy. How else does one explain Paul Bremer's notorious number of Orders, while in charge of the Provisional Authority, which attempted to set up a framework of commercial law that enabled Iraq's industries to be bought in their entirety by foreign investors. He had no democratic mandate of any sort from the Iraqi people when he did that. It was intended to happen rapidly so that it would be a fait accompli. The insurgency has got in the way to an extent.
One also wonders why in a sovereign country with a relatively small population compared to some others, the US was constructing an embassy and consulate, which would house three thousand personnel. This is a much greater number than accorded nations with three times or more the population of Iraq. It would seem that this has something to do with having a client state, which is rich in oil.
The US also intended to provide the Kurds with a stronger position than they would have got on a strictly proportional basis by setting up rules upon which the New Constitution had to be framed, which prevented the majority from having a proportionate influence. It knew that the Kurds would be friendly to the US geopolitical interests, if only to maintain their ability to remain largely autonomous. The rules for setting up the Constitution enable a vote of 60% or more in three provinces to veto the proposed Constitution in the forthcoming referendum. This was done with the Kurds mainly in the mind of the US. However, it explains why the Sunnis are hastening to register to vote. You have completely mistaken their motives for doing this. The Sunni politicians have said why they are doing it openly.
The figures you gave for the tiny number of insurgents and the contrast you drew with the ability of the North Vietnamese to continue to suffer terrible attrition, was intended to show that the insurgency cannot endure. There is another example, which you have omitted, which shows very clearly that a very small number of activists can continue for an indefinite period of time to cause mayhem if they have the support of their ethnic or sectarian population. It also showed that the existence of a well and long established police force and thousands of troops, could not stop their activity. The example is Northern Ireland. In the end a political solution was deemed to be the only way to bring the killing and disruption to a close.
In Iraq, it looks as if every US strategic aim will be defeated. It is already clear that the only political solution that is acceptable to the Shias will place the real influence in the hands of Iran and with this happening, the Sunni insurgency will continue.
Ttrryosborn, the optimistic but misleading gloss you have put on the disastrous Bush and Blair misadventure is just the spin of someone who is watching the fiasco play out and is unable to admit it to himself or, at least, to others.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
brolly,
I thought you said you wanted to cut to the chase and forget the nonsense.
On the one hand someone on OD wrote the Iranians were going to call the shots, in Iraq. Now you say the Americans are going to call the shots. Which is it? Let's get our diatribes in order, capisce?
By the way, such "nonsense" overlooks the Iraqis themselves. Where are they going to be when all this grabbing takes place?
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
"On the one hand someone on OD wrote the Iranians were going to call the shots, in Iraq. Now you say the Americans are going to call the shots. Which is it? Let's get our diatribes in order, capisce?"
:)
"Too... many... different people... with... different opinions! Cannot... cope! Why... don't... they all... think the same!"
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
["On the one hand someone on OD wrote the Iranians were going to call the shots, in Iraq. Now you say the Americans are going to call the shots. Which is it? Let's get our diatribes in order, capisce?"]
I said that the Americans had the intention of installing a client government, first with Chalabi and then with Alawi and then in whatever way they could. I did not say that they had succeeded.
Why is everyone of the Bushites so chary of admitting to wanting, to use a euphemism, a 'friendly' government in Iraq. Isn't this the aim of US foreign policy. It was what it did to get one in Chile back in the 1970's isn't it.Oh, I forgot, it helped to overthrow the democratically elected President Allende on the way. Maybe my bringing up this fact is a bit below the belt.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
brolly,
The US "had the intention of installing a client government"? The US could invade the country in a few days but couldn't install a "client" government? that's odd. Did the Iraqi Parlaiment defeat the US army prior to writing its constitution? I hadn't heard. How else could they have done so unless you don't know what you're talking about? The US gave control of Iraq's future to the Iraqis over a year ago. Elections took place in January to select the Parliament which was to decide the future. Sunni failure to particpate was due to threats from TERRORISTS opposed to democracy, not the US, and bad advice from Sunni politicians. Those same Sunni politicians acknowledged that it was a mistake not to vote. They are now urging Sunnis to vote this time on the constitution.
Allende's government? Well using your own logic Allende's government was as illigitmate as the Blair government. In a previous post you complained that the Blair's re-election was "biased and unfair" Why? Because he was elected by only 36% of the voters. YOU said that meant 64% of the voters opposed him. Funny, Allende was elected by only 36" of the vote also,in l970. He used that 36% to appropriate land and property that did not belong to the state. Using your reasoning he did that with 64% of the country in oppostion. His economic policies also ruined the economy. No wonder the country deposed him. How long would Blair stay in office if he did that?
Many of OD have called for junking the political process in Britain. But if Allende and Blair were each elected with the same percentage, then both governments are legitimate, or they are not. which is it?
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Actually, it might be illuminating to consider Salvador Allende's time in Chile, and US involvement. It does show rather well how US foreign policy works...
It's no secret that the US didn't like Allende. He was after all a socialist, and a fierce critic of "capitalism" (ie selling your country's products abroad, even at the expense of your own population). They were worried that US companies like ITT, Anaconda, and Kennecott could be adversely affected. Overt intervention (such as invasion etc) was out of the question, so covert intervention was pursued.
The CIA pursued "Track I", funding rival candidates and anti-Allende propaganda. They even sought to influence the Chilean congress. A further "Track II" was prepared, in which a coup to overthrow Allende would be supported. Generals who may be willing to support such a coup were sounded out. Though little came of it in the end. These courses of action were designed not to cause discontent, but merely to further it in their own interests. The CIA long denied all this, before files released by President Clinton revealed the extent of their involvement.
Once Allende became President the US immediately objected and launched economic sanctions against Chile. They wanted, in Nixon's words: To make the economy scream. This involved a massive cut in aid at a time when the price of copper was plummeting. severely damaging the Chilean economy. The CIA continued it's role of trying to destabilise the situation and force Allende out of office. Working with existing groups opposed to him.
The Church Report stated that CIA activity in Chile during 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. A CIA memo from 1970 states that: "We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden." This was known as Project FUBELT.
The 1973 coup by Pinochet brought a figure far more sympathetic to US interests. He may have been a murderous dictator, but at least he wasn't about to nationalise any industries. US economic aid shot up again. CIA assistance was provided to consolidate the coup, with a number of army officers being made into CIA contacts. Though they had to change their public policy at the time, as paying contacts involved in human rights abuses was previously illegal. At least 3000 people are known to have died in the days immediately after the coup, as Pinochet established himself.
His dictatorship, actively supported by the US, saw the murderous Operation Condor, and the arrival of the "Chicago Boys" to run the economy. GDP was boosted at the expense of the population and through the incursion of massive foreign debts.
US Foreign Policy in this case worked to destablise an elected government unfriendly to US interests, while supporting a murderous dicatator who was friendly. The active involvement of the US military was unnecessary. Speaking in 2003, Colin Powell noted: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt Murrell,
Thanks for your detailed account of the disgraceful US policy to subvert Allende in Chile. I now challenge Ttrrysoborn to defend US actions in this context in the light of what you said.
Ttrry must believe that the rest of us are cretins, in trying to have us accept ihs assertion that the US handed over Iraq's future to its politicians without attemtping to pull all sorts of strings.I cannot understand his reasons for so doing unless he is genuinely naive and believes this nonsense himself.
He has deliberately ignored the reason, which I told him of, in an earlier post, that Sunni politicians are hastening to get voters registered to frustrate the adoption of the new Constitution by getting the majority of voters in three provinces reject it, which is written into the rules. Ttrry has really got an annoying habit of putting a totally different spin on the truth. He has interpreted the Sunni registeration action as being one of cooperation when it is anything but that.Perhaps he doesn't read much. because the leading Sunni politicians have said as much.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
brolly,
Read Matt's version of Allende. It's very slanted. No surprise there. It overlooks the dictator qualities of Allende's seizures of private property (both US and Chilean)not belonging to the state. Matt says the US din't like him. He overlooks the fact that Allende didn't like the US and many Chileans.
Now that we're past that. What about my contention that since Allende and Blair were both elected by only 36% of the vote-- and since you yourself pointed out that meant 64% of the electorate were opposed to Blair and thus his election was not "fair and just"-- why do you legitimize one and not the other?
We can get to the Sunnis after you answer my simple question.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
I'm sure that the Chileans were more than glad to get rid of Allende. I mean, he may have halved unemployment, raised wages, and sought to address the hugh economic inequality in the country. But to nationalise a handful of industries. Disgraceful!
The US was obviously more than justified in adding to the countries economic woes. Can't have leaders worried about the poor now can we.
The US approved General Pinochet was certainly an improvement (from "dictator qualities" to a real dictator!). I mean, he may have instigated the murder of thousands (aided by the CIA), reduced money spent on health care (causing a typhoid epidemic), education, housing, and slashed wages. Not to mention causing unemployment to skyrocket from around 3% to 25%. But hey, at least he didn't try and nationalise anything!
Allende may have hated the US, but he didn't try and destabilise the country and influence it's elections, did he? As for your question to Brolly, there's a big difference between democratic reform and unwanted foreign interference. I want to see a more democratic Britain, I don't want the US to ruin my country's economy to achieve it.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt,
The idea that the US knocked off a peaceful, pastoral country is simplistic to the max.
Politics in South America has always been an ongoing pissing contest between opposing groups. If you were looking for good guys and bad guys, you came to the wrong place. Coups and countercoups are a way of life.
Politics were already severely polarized in Chile by the time Allende took office with only 36% of the vote. Brolly called Blair's re-election with 36% "unjust and unfair". He wrote the political system in Britain should be changed. Think of the remaining 64% in Chili with that attitude and armed to the teeth. Now you got the true picture.
Did Allende raise wages and employment? Only during his first year and only by means that were unsustainable and demogogic. It was a simple ploy urged by the Socialists to get support from the masses. It was similar to ancient Roman emperors giving the mob games and entertainment to keep them happy. Whereas the emperor conquered territories to pay for games, Allende seized private property (American and Chilean) to pay for his games. Did he get congressional approval to expropriate private industries? No. At the urging of socialists, he
used a l932 law passed by a previous Socialist Republic to seize industries WITHOUT
congressional approval. The doesn't sound like democracy to me and I don't see a good guy. In addition to pissing off everybody (yeah, the US also)his tinkering with the economy went flat after a year. Large estates he seized failed. Food had to be imported. Factories seized and given to the working class could not keep up with supply. Shortages appeared. The resulting inflation wiped out the pay raises. By l973, inflation reached 500%. The government couldn't impose austerity measures its own supporters and it couldn't get congress to approve new taxes. Foreign banks did not trust the government to give them loans to float the deficits. The US was not about to help a socialist government which stole from it. Would you? Chili was one the verge of collapse. Collapse is something which is very frightening to ordinary people. Fear leads to desperation. This fear polarized the left AND the right. Both sides feared a coup from the other. The army, with the support of the frightened middle class and the US, hit first.
Where you can find the good guys and the bad guys to talk to about the mess in Chili is a mystery. Even the Chileans themselves say there is plenty of blame to go around.
If you're still on the hunt for good guys and bad guys, why not re-read DUNE.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
Are you having trouble understanding my argument. I did not suggest that the US "knocked off" a peaceful leader. I said that they furthered and used discontent for their own ends. They supported a murderous dictator over an imperfect leader, because it suited their own interests.
Allende himself got 36%. However he ran on an almost identical platform to Radomiro Tomic, another left-wing candidate who received 27% of the vote. Once in government he formed a coalition government with a number of other parties. The right-wing candidate received 34%. Chile was not as split as you make out.
Chile's economy suffered after a drop in the price of copper led to staggering inflation. As the US had done it's utmost (as you pointed out) to destroy Chile's economic relationships with the world it couldn't cope. Nationalisation is a recognised economic policy. He had congressional approval. Most US companies in Chile had made use of the country's less than democratic system to boost profits. Having a few factories seized doesn't inspire much sympathy. From everything I've found about Allende he genuinely wanted to help his population. if you have information to the contrary...
Both sides fear a coup from the other? Leaving aside for the moment how the right can fear a coup when the left is already in power, do you have any evidence of this. The CIA and US government reports on situation make no mention of this unrest, or potential left-wing coups. Allende had pissed off the landowners and the rich, the military decided to take control. The CIA knew all this, and aided it.
All of this is made perfectly clear in documents released under the FOIA, now available from the National Security Achieves at the George Washington University website. The Church Report also details US involvement.
Besides, all this is largely besides the point. The US interfered in the internal politics and economy of another country. They aided the rise of General Pinochet. However badly off the people were under Allende, things got far worse. Real wages declined by 40%. Unemployment rose from 3% to 22%. Privitisation resulted in cut funding for education and health. Not to mention the murder of thousands of people. The CIA even admitted helping out in this!
If the US opposed Allende because he wasn't a "good guy", why all the support for General Pinochet?
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt Murrell,
I think you have disposed of Ttrryosborn's main thrust in the shrewd point about the British electoral system needing democratic reform and that being quite a different matter to the US's interference in Chile's affairs, notwithstanding how many votes Allende received. It seems that it was an earlier case of 'regime change'.
The assistance the US gave to the British in subverting the democraticlly elected Dr Mossadeq in Iran in the 1950's was what one can call a trial run in the 'regime change' stakes.
You cannot keep a good man down and Ttrry will not go quietly. He will raise the same red herrings until the cows come home and will lay down smoke screens to avoid confronting the main issues.
Will these Americans never get the message that their attempts to tell the rest of the world what is best for them economically and politically and building an enormous military force to make sure that they are taken seriously, will result in the worst possible reaction.
They are drunk on military power but are bringing their day of reckoning ever closer.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
I had a look at an article that describes the events that led to the deposing of Allende. The web address is as follows:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Chile_KH.html
I also checked other accounts of the same period and events. I must say that what I read was quie sickening.
How you can justify the nefarious US policy and actions with regard to Chile and the favour with which the murderous General Pinochet was given by the US, makes me wonder about your sense of decency. Try some honest reflection for a while and in the meanwhile hang your head in shame.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
brolly,
I have already written to Matt about Allende's demogogery in office, the anarchy in Chili and the madness of South American politics. You can read it there.
If you truly did read about US support for Allende's downfall, you read it involved a minor amount of aid for the CHILEAN OPPOSITION. US effort was not the deciding factor. Chilean effort was. The US took no direct hand. Chilean excesses were Chilean excesses. They were sickening. Salivating at the hope of trying to pin their actions on the US while overlooking their guilt is more sickening.
As for sickening, BRITAIN wrote the book on sickening behavior. Cromwell slaughtered one-third of Ireland. No wonder the IRA hates you. You built the MAZE prison to deprive Irish resisters of their rights. For hundreds of years your colonial armies slaughtered native populations from the Sudan to China in the name of Empire. You considered yourselves racially superior to justify the carnage. You didn't use surrogates to achieve slaughter. You did it alone. If any country deserved guilt in the search for power, it is BRITAIN.
You still haven't answered my simple question asking you to explain why you feel a 36% vote negates Blair's right to office and not Allende's.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
First, no one, least of all me, could defend Britain's past imperialist policies. What you said has much truth although some might dispute aspects of it.
Second, your account of what happened in Chile is too far from the truth to warrant any further discussion.
You keep hammering the point about 36% and ignore the brutal reality of Pinochet's murderous government that was helped into place by the US and then supported.
No amount of waffle from you on this point will change the mind of the millions that know better. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.Black doesn't become white on your say so.
I have no hesitation in acccepting that Britain's imperialist behaviour was for the benefit of British commercial interests. You seem to have great difficulty in conceding that the US has similar motives that are paramount and that they have not acted with equal brutality in the past. As long as you adhere to this fixated view, there is simply no point in discussing these issues.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
brolly,
First, I'm glad to see that you acknowledged Britain's past.
Second, the account I wrote was a CHILEAN account of the Allende years. As I said before South American politics have no good guys and bad guys. It is naieve to look at the Allende affair in a bottle. South American politicians have always tried to screw each other.They play rougher than the US and Britain.
I keep mentionning the identical victory margins of Allende and Blair because you fail to. Your reference to Pinochet instead is just a smoke screen to avoid answering. Why do you consider Blair's election "unjust and unfair" and not Allende's-- especially in light of Allende's circumventing the Chilean congress? Blair and Allende were both fairly elected, or they were not. Which is it?
Pinochet's conduct during and after the coup was deplorable. Who has said it wasn't? But this was done by Chileans to Chileans. The US had no command and control-- not like the Maze. Revisionist hacks often overlook the obvious in order to pin anything on the US. They're just writing new sonnets to the choir.
"Waffle"? You don't know what waffle means. It means to undercut your arguement with second thoughts. That would fit your previous post.
You would like me to "concede"(or waffle) that the US used the same "imperialist behaviour" as Britain in the past?
Britain and the US have allot in common. Imperialism is not one of them. Britain's conquests overseas were designed to create closed markets. Conquered colonies could send raw materials ONLY to the mother country. These same colonies could buy finished products ONLY from the same.
Where does the US have such colonies, or markets? US trade is competitive. We don't have to conquer people to sell to them.
Leadership of the free world fell to the US by default after WW2 because its European allies were too exhausted. The US had to shoulder that responsibility or watch country after country fall to communism. That commitment paid off in l989. It has since cut its military force by half from 2.8 million to 1.4 million. It still has the power to keep sea lanes open and shut down dictators.
It certainly couldn't do this without allies. Allies it has. If you can't get over that-- tough.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
"...As I said before South American politics have no good guys and bad guys. It is naieve to look at the Allende affair in a bottle. South American politicians have always tried to screw each other..."
As you referred to Brolly's reference to my post, I've taken the liberty of replying. The internal state of Chile is almost irrelevant to my post (and therefore Brolly's point). The focus was on US involvement in events. The US is after all the subject of this forum.
You claim that the US is blameless because it wasn't the prime actor in events. Rather like claiming it doesn't matter you hit someone with a hammer because they were dying anyway.
Interference in democratic elections:
You consistently overstate the level of unrest in Chile. Yes Allende got 36% of the vote. However, as I pointed out he ran on an almost identical platform to Radomiro Tomic, who received 27% of the vote. Allende also headed a coalition party in government. He managed to win a plurality of the votes cast. He did this despite the CIA funding his opponents and running anti-Allende propaganda campaigns.
According to the Church Report, the CIA "financed activities covering a broad spectrum, from simple propaganda manipulation of the press to large-scale support for Chilean political parties, from public opinion polls to direct attempts to foment a military coup."
Despite all this, Allende's party actually increased it's share of the votes by the next election.
Making the Economy "Scream"
Once Allende was in power, the US decided to do all it could to wreak the economy. They aimed to drive the Chileans, in the words of US ambassador Edward Korry, to the "utmost deprivation and poverty". They were able to do this because, thanks to close ties between the Chilean business elite and the US, Chile's economy was extremely dependent on trade with the States. US aid dropped dramatically. Every effort was made to stifle economic reforms, and increase the negative effects of inflation. The Church report explicit states that this was intended to bring about a military coup:
"The point was then made that there would probably be no military action unless economic pressures could be brought to bear on Chile. It was agreed that an attempt would be made to have American business take steps in line with the U.S. government's desire for inimediate economic action."
Despite all this, the standard of living for the average Chilean did improve. As admitted by British intelligence assessments, and the UK ambassador of the time. They noted that Allende was committed to bringing about reform through "peaceful and democratic" means. I should also point out that the scale of nationalisation was far smaller than that carried out by the Attlee government in post-war Britain. Those companies that had property seized were compensated for their loss.
Overthrowing an elected President:
All this time the CIA was pursuing "Track II", actively encouraging a military coup. Again from the Church Report:
"Track II was initiated by President Nixon on September 15 when he instructed the CIA to play a direct role in organizing a military coup compensated in Chile."
Ambassador Korry was also brought onboard to "encourage" a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government. This was largely done through the close contacts of the US and Chilean military. Economic pressure was also brought to bear:
As part of its attempt to induce the Chilean military to intervene before the October 24 congressional vote, the United States had threatened to cut off military aid if the military refused to act. That was accompanied by a promise of support in the aftermath of a coup.
Finally it happened...
He may be a murderous bastard, but he's our murderous bastard:
Once General Pinochet had seized power, the US did all it could to help him consolidate his position. A CIA report on the situation notes that the agency "actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende."
Economic aid shot back up. Climbing from around $800,000 to around $10 million. The CIA backed propaganda campaigns supporting Pinochet. All this while "Political parties were banned, Congress was put in indefinite recess, press censorship was instituted, supporters of Allende and others deemed opponents of the new regime were jailed, and elections were put off indefinitely."
The US resumed business as normal, despite the average Chilean seeing a 40% drop in real wages. Along with massive cuts to desparately needed public services.
The CIA also played a part in "Operation Condor", the tracking and murder of dissidents in Latin America. Providing much needed intelligence.
Sources:
All of this comes from US and British declassified reports. They make fascinating reading, what I've mentioned here is merely the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you should take a look at them...
Click here to read the Church Report
Click here to read CIA report on it's activities in Chile
Click here to read miscellaneous documents relating to period
Perhaps you could explain what gives the US the right to interfere in such a way?
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt,
You want to"focus" on US involvement with Allende and Chili?
That's your problem. You focus ONLY on the US role in CHILI'S problems to the exclusion of the CHILIEANS themselves. Doesn't that seem odd? To discuss any event ACCURATELY, one must discuss ALL the players. To do any less is just an exercise in propoganda. You're just feeding your own anti-American fantasies.
"Blame"? Others have written that there was plenty of blame to go around. Sorry you missed my post which statd that. Why do you "focus" on the US? Their's was a minor role in the chaos. What about the madness of South American politics? What was the state of politics in Chili when Allende was elected by 36%? What about the Socialists? What about Allende's usurpation of power? What of the chaos? What of 500% inflation? What of The reaction from the left AND the right? What about the army?
Allende's election margin?
Thank you for finally getting to Allende's margin of victory. I infer from that that claims about Blair's re-election by the same margin being "unfair and Unjust" are now dead. I have stated that I'm not an expert in British politics, but didn't Blair form a majority in Parliament with other parties also?
"The level of unrest in Chili exaggerated?
I am recounting the written history of events. If Allende was on such firm ground in the congress, why did he use an old law written in l932 from a previous republic to expropriate private property (US and Chilean) instead of getting approval from HIS supporters in the existing congress? Doesn't sound like a man who had faith in the democratic process. The Socialists convinced him to go around the congress in order to buy loyalty from their supporters and to screw the middle class. How hard it is to understand?
US contributions to political parties in Chili? Were contributions illegal in Chili? How much money did the Chilean Socialists get from abroad? In the US, foreign contributions to political parties happen all the time. Many high-ranking members of the International Red Cross made large campaign contributions to the Kerry campaign in order to defeat Bush-- something which tarnished their reputation for impartiality. Shall we condemn the Red Cross? When Allende illegally seized private US (and Chilean) property and distributed it to the masses who voted for him he basically declared economic war on his own middle class. I've written about this already. His thievery plunged the country into chaos. How can you say 500% inflation is an overstatement? Maybe you've never been in a situation where you have to face losing EVERYTHING you spent your life accumulating. Where do you get the moral authority to pass judgement? Wait until 500% inflation wipes out your life savings overnight and see if you don't want someone to blame. Such catastrophes have led to similar political upheavals which had nothing to do with the US. Can't you guess a few? That's why historian wrote there was plenty of blame to go around. Your assertion that the Chileans somehow danced to an American tune and that nothing was wrong is absurd.
IF Allende had expropriated Chilean Businesses and estates only and left American businesses untouched, he would have still had the economic upheavals and a coup.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
Let met get this straight, you're argument is that US involvement in should Chile should be ignored because evenst were going to happen anyway?
So trying to kill an already dying person is legally and morally okay in your book?
Allende:
"the madness of South American politics?"
Nice to see you're not engaging in blanket stereotypes. According to the Church Report:
"Chile's history has been one of remarkable continuity in civilian, democratic rule. From independence in 1818 until the military coup d'etat of September 1973, Chile underwent only three brief interruptions of its democratic tradition."
Perhaps you could be more specific about "the chaos", and "The reaction from the left AND the right?". All the reports from the time (and after) state that Chile was remarkably stable. The CIA had remarkable trouble trying to get a coup off the ground. They failed more than once.
According to British intelligence reports, and statements from the then UK ambassador, the lot of the average Chilean improved under Allende. That's what made him so dangerous.
Allende ran the country through a coalition government. The Unity Party actually increased it's percentage of the votes over it's first term.
The gripe with Blair is that his party has a disproportionate number of seats in the House of Commons compared with it's percentage of the vote. They form a majority, which means coalition government is unnecessary. Yet, more people voted Conservative than Labour. None of which is relevant to Chile.
Political donations:
The Red Cross? Imagine if the Chinese secret service had provided billions to John Kerry. If they'd placed anti-Bush stories into the media. Rigged opinion polls. Now imagine that they'd encouraged a military coup once Bush had won, while doing all they could to wreak your economy.
And you whine because the Red Cross made donations?
The economy:
Quite how expropriation carried out under congressional law can be illegal is a little beyond me. Are you suggesting that 40 year old legislation is invalid? In which case you oppose the US Constitution?
Spare me if I shed few tears for landowners who gained and consolidated their wealth under a dictatorship. Besides, US documents make no mention of Chileans as justification for their actions. The scale of nationalisation was far below that of post-war Britain as well, with companies compensated for their losses.
The average Chilean saw their lot improve under Allende. Despite inflation. Which history clearly shows wasn't his fault.
"Your assertion that the Chileans somehow danced to an American tune and that nothing was wrong is absurd."
Perhaps that's why I've never made it.
My argument is clear: The US encouraged the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, then supported the murderous dictator that replaced him.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt,
"Let me get this straight..."
If only you would.
Should US involvement in Chili be ignored? no
should US involvement in Chili be exaggerated? no
Should the role of Chileans in their own affairs be minimized? no
What should we do? Why not ask questions?
Why was the US involved in South America? Let's answer that with another question. Why was England involved in Europe's affairs for hundreds of years. From the Middle Ages to Napoleon to the Kaiser to Hitler, why did she play one European power against another? SECURTIY. England did not want one power to dominate the continent and threaten England's security. Did England have a right to security? It did if you ask an Englishman.
Does the US has the right to security? It does if you ask an American.
What threatened America's security? Soviet communism and Soviet nuclear missles. They threatened the US and the free world.
What was the result of this threat? THE COLD WAR. How did South America figure in the Cold War? Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba ( He was the Pinochet of l959) and allowed Soviet nuclear missles to be placed 90 seconds from the US. The result was the Cuban Missle Crisis. Did the US want to stop Soviet communism and nuclear missles from spreading in South America? Yes. Did they have a right to stop communism and nuclear missles in South America? Did England have the right to stop Napoleon's march in Europe?
Was Allende a Marxist? Yes, he said so. Did he want to nationalise industry and agriculture in Chili? Yes. Did he want to open friendly relations with communist countries? Yes. Did he have opposition within Chili? Yes from the middle class, the professional class, white collar workers, store owners, industrialists, estate owners, labor unions and military officers. Did RICHARD NIXON start the campaign against Allende in the US? NO. President Kennedy (who stopped the missles in Cuba) began US support for the Allende opposition. Kennedy supplied money to Christian Democrats and other anti-Allende groups.
By the time Nixon came into office the situation in Chili had already polarized. I have already written about Allende's years in office. One thing overlooked was that Chili depended allot on US loans. The US was not obligated to make loans to a communist. Instead it offered support to labor unions, the press and the military. They were all anxious to get rid of Allende. The US did not have to convince anybody to take their aid. Allende did that himself. Allende went down the path of communizing Chili by illegal means in the face of widespread opposition by the people. If his hands were as clean as you like to imagine, the coup would never have succeeded.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Ttrryosborn,
you realise that there is a difference between chili and Chile, I hope.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
chili is now communist? what about salsa? what is the world coming too????? *sob*
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Given that chili is the official dish of the State of Texas, perhaps it's time to roll out the B52 bombers again? Could we nuke Texas in order to save it?
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
only when theres a bush family reunion, and Im not talking about the baked bean guy with his trusted dog duke!:)
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
First-Matt: You are a riot!!! I nearly pissed myself laughing! (graphic, but its an expression) I cant imagine why people dont think the same?
Second-Ttrry: Wow bud, I forgot you have a thing for calling women "bitter" and any male that might have a differing position other than Bush's as "obsessive" and having "wet dreams". Sorry, I should have remembered. By the way love the knife analogy, I can see how it directly deals with my observation of the division of our country about the Iraq war. You must be a riot when given rorschach cards. Oh, and your comment about most Americans stating that we should stay until we clean up our own mess ... well DUH! Most people with a friggin conscience would. We are also the ones wonderin' how the hell we let a friggin stupid-ass Texan get us in there in the first place!
Oh and by the way: for those of you who are wondering how he got voted back in ... look at John Kerry's interviews. That was the hardest voting year of my life, but I still voted for Kerry (he was the only lying idiot who seemed anti-war like and wasnt from oil country). Democracy is great, but you dont always have a good selection that runs for President. It almost seems like puppets sign up for the job since President Kennedy and his brother John were assasinated. Now, that was a smart President who knew when to say enough. Makes you wonder what America would be like now. Sigh. For those of you who are chomping at the bit to scream LIBERAL! I am an independent, I have voted for democrats, republicans and even a green party member! (not Perot-scary little man);)
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
"First-Matt: You are a riot!!! I nearly pissed myself laughing! (graphic, but its an expression) I cant imagine why people dont think the same?"
Thank you. Sadly genius is all too often unrecognised in it's own time.
:)
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Well written. Concerns. Worries. Back memories. Confusion springs though, why have most of US citizens supported the madness unleashed by GW? Why did he get re-elected? Should we cry that our leader whom we supported in his "crusade" took steps as he deemed necessary? Maybe it is a little too late to cry? If he did act in accordance with his electorate then ... this is democracy (please feel free to dispute that), if he did not then is the US a democratic country or is it something else... . You should re-evaluate your position and consider whether it is worthwhile to impose your style of "democracy" on other nations.
Re: This is turning into a mutated Vietnam
Matt Murrell,
A superlative response to Ttrryosborn. You have hit the nail on the head when you directed Ttrry's attention to US involvement as being the core issue.
Ttrry will not take any account of the figures you gave to support the legitimacy of Allende's election. You already explained to him in a previous post the difference between the widespread feeling that our first past the post system is felt to be unfair to so many millions of voters and can be justifiably criticised and disinguished this with the interference of the US in chilean affairs. This did not stop him from side stepping the main issue. Ask him to answer a question and he levels another one at you instead. I suppose this is a debating style of sorts but not one that I like.
Post new comment |
|
Elections |
Posts: 537
Joined: 2004-04-23