Miles : a piece of US history for you.

[emprworm]

Miles, many of the people who lived by then are still alive today, and thus it is perfectly acceptable to take it into consideration when judgin America.

And of course the US isn't proud of it, but does that mean anything?

i hate to say this but earthnuker is right. so long as there are still generations directly connected to those events, it is understandable their opinions. However, that is no reason to condemn the US today- the cold war era was another completely different era.

I didn't say he was wrong. I just say that before you demonize the U.S., look at the atrocities done by ALL other countries and the compare. Then you will find that ALL countries have severely wronged another people. No one is clean.

yup. isn't that the truth...no one is clean. I'm sure there is dirt to dig up on CHile. Why hold someone eternally in judgment over something? If we do that, then all nations are guilty.

[Anathema]

i hate to say this but earthnuker is right.

Hehe

[Miles]

yup. isn't that the truth...no one is clean. I'm sure there is dirt to dig up on CHile. Why hold someone eternally in judgment over something? If we do that, then all nations are guilty.

Let's not forget that if we are going to judge a people by their governments then lets look at who actually did these atrocities to human rights. Operation Condor was carried out by several countries in that region, they did the killing, all we did is help Pinochet to power (based on our fear of communism) then Kissinger decided to look the other way while he commited these crimes. The actual blood is on the governments of that region's hands. We were not right, but we certainly don't bear all the blame.

[zamboe]

Miles,

I find your approach quite objective, even though I don't agree with your opinion, but I do thank the way you answered. Since you took the time do check the proof I presented (links) and also backed up with you comments about Operacion Condor, which are true.

However, I ask you not to start a with flames, such as calling my statements hypocracy without showing where are my contradictions.

Now, I'll quote some things you wrote :

"Kissinger believed that Chile was becoming a communist state. I do not defend his actions, but in the climate of the times, they would have been considered enemies."

If you don't defend his actions, I conclude you condemn those actions. Good point.

"The U.S. did not support it until 1990, although we may have turned a blind eye. However, almost all of this time was still during the cold war, which admittedly was a bad time for us. "

In my opinion, turning a blind eye, is the same as accepting it, maybe not as strong as the support offered before, but still. That policy of first "support" then "acceptance" was carried out by several US presidents had no concerns about democracy or HR violations, that looks to my eyes very difficult to believe, since 17 years is a long time to realize that one thing is being done the wrong way.

"Sure it is, if you are willing to drudge up the mistakes of other countries to give it it's relative significance. There are no clean states, and most have a far worse record than ours. "

Wait a minute here. Sure there are no clean countries.

But there is a big difference between internal affairs and external conspiracy. No country can be clean of things that happened as internal events, but those were INTERNAL events. The point here is about what countries are clean of conspiracy against other countries. I can say 100% that Chile is absolutely clean in terms of his foreign policy.

US for example is among the worst cases of external and foreign conspiracy against democracies.

Don't mix those two concepts.

"Let's not forget that if we are going to judge a people by their governments then lets look at who actually did these atrocities to human rights. Operation Condor was carried out by several countries in that region, they did the killing, all we did is help Pinochet to power (based on our fear of communism) then Kissinger decided to look the other way while he committed these crimes. The actual blood is on the governments of that region's hands. We were not right, but we certainly don't bear all the blame. "

Sure, US don't bear all the blame. But it gets the worst part of it.

Let me put it this way.

Mohamed Atta (terrorist that crashed one plane to Twin Towers) executed the plan that Osama Bin Laden planed. Who is more guilty ?, those two deserve to die, but in terms of guilty, OBL is by far more dangerous and guilty than the other guy.

Don't get me wrong, under any circumstance I am trying to compare anyone with Al Qaeda, I am just trying to make a point, which is, part of the guilty is in the Chilean army, but the big part is in Kissinger and the CIA.

[Miles]

Miles,

I find your approach quite objective, even though I don't agree with your opinion, but I do thank the way you answered. Since you took the time do check the proof I presented (links) and also backed up with you comments about Operacion Condor, which are true.

However, I ask you not to start a with flames, such as calling my statements hypocracy without showing where are my contradictions.

I thought I had shown your hypocracy. You blame us for not acting against human rights violations in Chile, while you ask us to sit idly by while human rights violations happen in Iraq. The situations in Iraq and Chile sound somewhat similar. Not a flame, just an observation.

Now, I'll quote some things you wrote :

If you don't defend his actions, I conclude you condemn those actions. Good point.

I don't defend his actions. I agree that our behavior as a country was poor. However, in the bigger picture I understand why they helped to throw out the democratic regime in order to prevent yet another communist state. I don't agree with it, but I have a benefit of hindsight that they did not have.

In my opinion, turning a blind eye, is the same as accepting it, maybe not as strong as the support offered before, but still. That policy of first "support" then "acceptance" was carried out by several US presidents had no concerns about democracy or HR violations, that looks to my eyes very difficult to believe, since 17 years is a long time to realize that one thing is being done the wrong way.

You're right, turning a blind eye is not justifiable, but most of the blame has to be layed on the killers themselves. That's like saying in an abusive home, the woman is to shoulder most of the blame for enabling the husband to beat his kids. Is she responsible, yes, but that doesn't remove most of the responsibility on the husband.

Again, put into the context of the bigger picture, being the cold war, Chile simply became one of many casualties in a big chess game with the Soviets. It is regretable, but that's the way the game was played. It was a nasty, ugly confrontation in which we came out winners, but with a lot of stains on our conscience.

Wait a minute here. Sure there are no clean countries.

But there is a big difference between internal affairs and external conspiracy. No country can be clean of things that happened as internal events, but those were INTERNAL events. The point here is about what countries are clean of conspiracy against other countries. I can say 100% that Chile is absolutely clean in terms of his foreign policy.

US for example is among the worst cases of external and foreign conspiracy against democracies.

Don't mix those two concepts.

Internal or External, ALL countries have done deplorable things.

Again, put your statement in the context of the cold war. We absolutely had to use other countries in our strategic battle with the Soviets. If we didn't then the Soviets would probably be the world power with strategic advantage over us. Then we wouldn't have the power to protect the rest of the world from them.

Sure, US don't bear all the blame. But it gets the worst part of it.

Let me put it this way.

Mohamed Atta (terrorist that crashed one plane to Twin Towers) executed the plan that Osama Bin Laden planed. Who is more guilty ?, those two deserve to die, but in terms of guilty, OBL is by far more dangerous and guilty than the other guy.

Don't get me wrong, under any circumstance I am trying to compare anyone with Al Qaeda, I am just trying to make a point, which is, part of the guilty is in the Chilean army, but the big part is in Kissinger and the CIA.

In the Human rights violations, Chile was NOT carrying out our orders. Pinochet was doing what was in his best interest to silence opposition. he formed the directive, not the U.S. and while I find Kissinger's acceptance to be disgusting, the majority of the blame still has to land on the ones who planned and carried out the murders.

The United States simply "backed the wrong poney", it's not the first or last time it has happened, and instead of correcting their mistakes, they turned a blind eye. This is regretable, but during the cold war, the U.S. had much bigger fish to fry.

My point is that you are wrong to equate our policies to those of the cold war. Things were much, much different then. I guess I partly understand it because I remember the early to mid eighties and the fear of the Soviets. Please understand that actions were taken to win the cold war and to prevent nuclear war that would kill us all, so if our tactics were less than desireable, and many regretable, most of our conspiracies against other governments were necessary to help prevent the extinction of the human race.

We probably were among the worst in conspiring against other governments, some of them democracies, but that is a position that was forced on us to protect both our own freedoms and those of our allies.

[emprworm]

well i originally was contributing to the debate, but its so interesting to read, I'm going to sit out. miles is a fantastic debator, as is zamboe.

enjoyable.

[Warlord Ripskar]

Every government is can of worms. My own ancestors were executed, evicted, had their property seized, deported and forced into exile by the British Government in 1746.

They did all that because my ancestors fought for the Jacobite cause. However there is still some nobility left. My Ancestors returned to Britain during the Crimean War and the government acted apallingly even then, however my family is not without powerful allies and we have been able to rebuild thanks to their help for which we will be grateful for some considerable time to come.

The government continues to act in a way which is frankly disgusting, but occaisionally you can twist their arms to act in a decent manner.

To concentrate on the Falklands in '82;

The US was also involved with the Military Junta that ran Argentina at the time. After the Argentinian invasion the US pressed for a UN brokered peace deal.

Do you think that would have worked in the Falklands?

We have ample proof of what a UN deal would have meant in practice in Cyprus.

During the debates in the Un one of the countries that voted against the case put by the UK was from Rwanda.

When asked why the Rwandans had voted against the UK the Rwandan delegate said;

"I don't know, A fortnight ago I didn't know the Falklands existed. I can only conclude that my government was offered something to vote that way."

Every side involved in that debacle made bad decisions that did cost lives, I can no more condone any deal the British Government made with the Chilean dictatorship than I can the acts they commited against my own ancestors, but you still need to act pragmatically and deal with situations as they occur.

Most of the planet hates Britain for happened in the British Empire, that is the cost of being the dominant power on the planet and it is something that the US is only now becoming aware of.

As much as hate it I am a part of that system, I can't change that, Nor can any of the Americans change what they are. I despise the British government, yet I will kill to defend it. That may seem illogical on the face of it, but I have my reasons and loyalties which go beyond any single issue.

[Edric O]

If a democratic state voted to sponsor terrorism against the United States, we have every right to interfere. Communism was the terrorism of the times and threatened our existance as democratic capitalists. We were attempting keep the momentum from shifting to communism. That is the way wars are fought.

This is absolutely disgusting. You have no right to compare communism, an economic system which I support, with terrorist acts of barbarity.

I can only guess how many freedom fighters were killed by your government to protect the interests of rich power-hungry capitalists from the will of the people.

[ordos45]

I think he meant every generation has something it views as a threat, and uses it as a scapegoat. The World War I and slightly post WW1 Generation had the Germans. The Baby Boomers (My parents generation) had the Communists (Soviets who were more Facist/Socialist than Communist). And the current generation has Terrorists.

[Edric O]

That I can agree with. It's a fact of history. But the keyword is "scapegoat". I don't think Miles sees them as scapegoats, but rather as an evil conspiracy trying to take over the world, that must be stopped at all costs. ::)

[Acriku]

As a scapegoat for what? The wars? Germans were the aggressors for the war in both world wars (WWI they were a major aggressor, but not entirely the only one), and Russians' and Americans' suspicions were the reason for the Cold War. And it's interesting that each and every war is intertwined into eachother, each being a cause or effect of the one after/before. The World War I, the Treaty of Versailles was made that was too harsh, stripping Germany of its military and economy, then Hitler came in and won chancellor by promising to replenish the economy and military power; The World War II left the Russians occupying as much land as it could, making the Americans suspicious that the Russians were trying to spread its communism to Europe, and left the Americans with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Aid that equally made the Russians suspicious that the Americans were pressing their capitalism.

[SurlyPIG]

I posted 3 links as proof for the topics I mentioned, one of them includes how Collin Powell recognized the US conspiracy against Chile democracy. If you don't read what I write and don't check at least the very first link, then your comments are worthless.

ROFL. "your comments are worthless" my foot. The first link went to a rather long transcript of Colin Powell answering questions from American high school students. There was but one question asked about Chile in the entire page and I didn't find it at first because I assumed you had posted that link as a reference to the Iraq-related questions and answers. It did not explain the events that occurred. It did not show a timeline, statistics or history. Second of all, this was Powell's answer, and it's self-explanatory:

"With respect to your earlier comment about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of. We now have a more accountable way of handling such matters and we have worked with Chile to help it put in place a responsible democracy.

One of the proudest moments of my life was going to Chile in the late '80s and speaking to all of the military officers in the Chilean armed forces, all the senior officers, and talking to them about democracy and elected representative government and how generals such as them and me -- I was a general at the time -- are accountable to civilian authority so that incidents of that kind or situations of that kind no longer arose."

Like miles said, I'll bet Chile has done far worse than simple disinvolvement in the affairs of another country. Because of the lack of tact in the UN, all UN countries can be blamed for doing exactly the same thing with other countries like Somalia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia (if not for NATO). And Miles brings up an excellent point in that you criticize the US for not engaging itself in the affiars of Chile, yet you criticise them for doing so with Iraq. Which one is it, Zamboe? You can't have it both ways.

Let's go back to what you just said...

"If you don't read what I write and don't check at least the very first link, then your comments are worthless."

Again, the first link had zero historical ane empirical value of what happened then and there (Chile, 1970). Thirdly, the other links are in SPANISH! This forum is in ENGLISH! Included links should be in English also. Lastly, the last two links ask you register. What kind of proof is that?

This tragic situation HAS NOT FINISHED YET.

This event has BEGUN 30 years ago. US supported it for 17 years (until 1990).

So it hasn't finished but it ended in 1990? Right...What year is it again?

The goverment agents keep killing inocent chilean civilians for 17 years !.So far there is only 2 persons in jale now, olny 2 !. Several process just recently went to justice because the information that CIA released in 2000 allowed it to happen, several processes are still under investigation, you know why ? because less than 10% of the bodies (of those who were killed) have been found, most of them are still hidden. In Chile you can see on a daily basis, the suffer of families that so far don't have a place to cry to their relatives, because their bodies have not yet been found.

You're making it sound like the US killed them. It didn't. YOUR government did. Why do you complain that they didn't intervene when you say they're out of line in Iraq? It makes even less sense than you normally do...

I wish you could tell them, "hey it's been 30 years ago, forget about it and go on", that only shows how repugnant is your attitude towards HR and life.

I do not detract from what actually happened, or diminish from the lives that were lost, but I'm still skeptical as you refuse to link to any historical data or statistics on this.

Btw, in some cases those civilians, the males were killed in their own houses in front of their wifes and childrens, and womens were deported to foreing countries. And you ask them to forget !, they still alive and still shocked for that. That's the CIA way.

That is indeed terrible, but the CIA doesn't kill people, it's an intelligence medium. Unless they somehow killed these people with information...

Again, you post no links to statistics about this or anything that outlines the level of US involvement in this. You claim that it was solely the US (the CIA in particular) that was killing people in Chile. I find that difficult to believe.

[zamboe]

I thought I had shown your hypocracy. You blame us for not acting against human rights violations in Chile, while you ask us to sit idly by while human rights violations happen in Iraq. The situations in Iraq and Chile sound somewhat similar. Not a flame, just an observation.

Twisting concepts around as you do can show your have an hypocracy view too.

You do not support NOW what the Goverment in you country did to Chile for 17 years, but you still would have supported it back int 1973 based on the cold war environment that was taking place in the world. That's hypocracy.

Other example, you mentioned that the US were consisting in defending it's democracy from a comunist thread that Kissinger thought was about to begin in South America, and the way US defend it was by destroying and conspiring against other democracies, that hypocracy too at least because in that view, US democracy was more important that others, Such a way to preserve democracy !, by putting militar dictatorial goverments in South America.

Of course, the point is, that you analize my view from the angle you want, and not from the angle I present, that way you can find as many contradictions as you want, because you are just not understading what I am trying to say.

I don't defend his actions. I agree that our behavior as a country was poor. However, in the bigger picture I understand why they helped to throw out the democratic regime in order to prevent yet another communist state. I don't agree with it, but I have a benefit of hindsight that they did not have.

Do I understand that you would have supported that policy back then ?, I know it's some kind of fiction but I'd like to know your approach in order to understand your principles for other actual events. (Principles don't change over time)

You're right, turning a blind eye is not justifiable, but most of the blame has to be layed on the killers themselves. That's like saying in an abusive home, the woman is to shoulder most of the blame for enabling the husband to beat his kids. Is she responsible, yes, but that doesn't remove most of the responsibility on the husband.

Again, most of the blame GOES to the people that elaborated the conspiracy, those plans were made in Washington, there are the most guilty people of the events that took place, of course there are local people that are guilty too, but don't loose the proportions of the responsabilities.

Internal or External, ALL countries have done deplorable things.

Again, put your statement in the context of the cold war. We absolutely had to use other countries in our strategic battle with the Soviets. If we didn't then the Soviets would probably be the world power with strategic advantage over us. Then we wouldn't have the power to protect the rest of the world from them.

Again, Internal problems are completly different from External.

All countries have made terrible mistakes by it's own people.

A few countries have made EXTERNAL DEPLORABLE THINGS, by interrupting democratic process.

Chile and other countries have a CLEAN background of External foreing policy.

In the Human rights violations, Chile was NOT carrying out our orders. Pinochet was doing what was in his best interest to silence opposition. he formed the directive, not the U.S. and while I find Kissinger's acceptance to be disgusting, the majority of the blame still has to land on the ones who planned and carried out the murders.

Carried out by chileans.

Planned by the CIA and approved by Nixon and other presidents of US.

In any court of law, the worst penalty always go to the person(s) who planned the plot.

The United States simply "backed the wrong poney", it's not the first or last time it has happened, and instead of correcting their mistakes, they turned a blind eye. This is regretable, but during the cold war, the U.S. had much bigger fish to fry.

My point is that you are wrong to equate our policies to those of the cold war. Things were much, much different then. I guess I partly understand it because I remember the early to mid eighties and the fear of the Soviets. Please understand that actions were taken to win the cold war and to prevent nuclear war that would kill us all, so if our tactics were less than desireable, and many regretable, most of our conspiracies against other governments were necessary to help prevent the extinction of the human race. We probably were among the worst in conspiring against other governments, some of them democracies, but that is a position that was forced on us to protect both our own freedoms and those of our allies.

I thought that for the US (and let's say UK too), freedom and democracy were the MOST important core values of a country and it's society.

However, so far I've never read anything that somehow make me undertand that the best way to promote and protect freedom and democracy is by destroying it and placing dictatorial terror regimes in other places. Yes, you read it right, TERROR was the name of the game the US played to protect democracy and freedom. Such a hypocracy !

I am absolutely sure, (and this affects any situation regardless time or year), that the best way to promote democracy and freedom is by SUPPORTING IT and PROTECTING IT.

At the cold war days, TERROR was the tool the USSR used to promote it's foreing policy, but instead of protecting it, the US used TERROR too.

That's why I see no difference in today events, that's why I do not believe the US will protect HR in Iraq for example, as you know any muslim is a potential terrorist for the US. I won't say that all Iraqui people that actually live inside support Saddam, but I think that the majority do, and those will be instantly killed by the invasion forces. It's a war and at any thread the language of weapons dominates.

Last, to show you that your country still have an hypocracy policy, US didn't released all the classified documents they have about the CIA conspiracy for 17 years. In all the reports released, ALL NAMES WERE ERASED, because those people (agents) who made and executed the conspiracy are still alive, and your country is protecting those killers by hidding their identity in order to prevent the action of justice. It shows that there is no really a commitment to solve this problem. If they could be taken to justice, sure more information would be known in order to provide some peace to the families that suffered and are still suffering.

[Miles]

This is absolutely disgusting. You have no right to compare communism, an economic system which I support, with terrorist acts of barbarity.

Again, you fail to see the big picture. It's all about perception. I do not attack communism (although I find it fatally flawed) that is only an economic ideal. The Soviet Union was the perceived threat to us and any communist state would have been allied with them. Read VERY, VERY carefully Edric so that you don't get confused again... We defended the world from the Soviet Union, and in that giant game of chess called the cold war, mistakes were made, but I don't think that anyone on this board or in the free world wishes that the Soviets would have won so that they could live under the freedoms that Russia enjoyed.

I can only guess how many freedom fighters were killed by your government to protect the interests of rich power-hungry capitalists from the will of the people.

This is too much... ;D freedom fighter...from the Soviet Union, are you so delusional in your hatred for America that you actually believe that.

[zamboe]

aceletal, is so easy to reply to you, because you prove that you don't even read what people writes, and it's in evidence your unbased and worthless comments.

Let's go back to what you just said...

"If you don't read what I write and don't check at least the very first link, then your comments are worthless."

Again, the first link had zero historical ane empirical value of what happened then and there (Chile, 1970). Thirdly, the other links are in SPANISH! This forum is in ENGLISH! Included links should be in English also. Lastly, the last two links ask you register. What kind of proof is that?

I won't even answer this myself I'll quote what Miles (someone who actually reads) said :

Acelethal, his evidence is legit. I have looked it up and documents de-classified by the Clinton Administration do support his claim.

No one, just you didn't believe the historic events I posted, emprworm, edrico and others already knew something about those events and Pinochet. I will repeat, you have proven to be an ignorant in some parts of America History. (America as a continent).

You want some link that backs every word I write, that's total BS.

If you will post ridiculous statments as the last one you wrote, that only show that you don't even read what you reply, then plz STFU.

So it hasn't finished but it ended in 1990? Right...What year is it again?

At this point you make me laugh.

Didn't you read this ? :

" Several process just recently went to justice because the information that CIA released in 2000 allowed it to happen, several processes are still under investigation "

THAT MEANS IN CASE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THAT IT HASN'T FINISHED YET.

You're making it sound like the US killed them. It didn't. YOUR government did. Why do you complain that they didn't intervene when you say they're out of line in Iraq? It makes even less sense than you normally do...

Not MY government. THE GOVERNMENT THAT US PUT AND SUPPORTED WITH MONEY AND WEAPONS.

I do not detract from what actually happened, or diminish from the lives that were lost, but I'm still skeptical as you refuse to link to any historical data or statistics on this.

WOW, you still saying the same.

I'll post again in case you forgot already :

Acelethal, his evidence is legit. I have looked it up and documents de-classified by the Clinton Administration do support his claim.

That is indeed terrible, but the CIA doesn't kill people, it's an intelligence medium. Unless they somehow killed these people with information...

CIA doesn't kill people ? ROFL.

Not even emprworm would say that (I guess) !.

CIA have killed before (just check how many USSR secret spy were killed also) and now they even have an authorization to kill terrorist.

Again, you post no links to statistics about this or anything that outlines the level of US involvement in this. You claim that it was solely the US (the CIA in particular) that was killing people in Chile. I find that difficult to believe.

I will not teach you history.

It's up you to learn it or not.

You passion to disagree with me in almost everything makes look you as a total fool, by asking something nobody else has done, because they know that those event took place. With those people we may not agree in the interpretation and analisis, but we don't argue about if it happened or not.

Plz, if you don't have something clever or interesting to add to this somekind of debate, and only want to make Q (this is not school), you better take a book of history and make up your conclusions before posting here.

[Miles]

Twisting concepts around as you do can show your have an hypocracy view too.

You do not support NOW what the Goverment in you country did to Chile for 17 years, but you still would have supported it back int 1973 based on the cold war environment that was taking place in the world. That's hypocracy.

You misunderstand my points. I would not support what my government did in 1973, but then again I have the benefit of hindsight, which as you know is always 20-20, but I understand the thinking that went behind this terrible mistake, as I think our government does now. Which is why Clinton released CIA information to help in the trial of Pinochet. Yet you want to judge our current president based on mistakes 30 years ago during a time when we were grasping to keep the world from nuclear war, and Soviet domination.

Our support of Pinochet was to stop communism, not to support Human Rights violations. Pinochet among other countries in the region carried those out. If I could go back, I would support our government correcting our mistake by taking out Pinochet. Just as I would have us now correct our mistake of not removing Saddam Hussein from power by taking him out now. No hypocrasy, and I hope you see that now.

Other example, you mentioned that the US were consisting in defending it's democracy from a comunist thread that Kissinger thought was about to begin in South America, and the way US defend it was by destroying and conspiring against other democracies, that hypocracy too at least because in that view, US democracy was more important that others, Such a way to preserve democracy !, by putting militar dictatorial goverments in South America.

Again, in hindsight it was a mistake, but in the defense of democracy on a world level, yes ours was more important, because we were the last line against the spread of communism and the Soviets. What the hell was Chile going to do to stop the Soviets?

Of course, the point is, that you analize my view from the angle you want, and not from the angle I present, that way you can find as many contradictions as you want, because you are just not understading what I am trying to say.

Hopefully by clearing up my position, you will understand that it is you who have misunderstood.

Do I understand that you would have supported that policy back then ?, I know it's some kind of fiction but I'd like to know your approach in order to understand your principles for other actual events. (Principles don't change over time)

Hopefully I have cleared up my position. Knowing what I know now, I would not support our policy, but I can't say how I would stand with the information and the threats of the time.

And you are completely wrong, principles DO change over time, depending on the battles you are fighting and the magnitude of the outcome.

Again, most of the blame GOES to the people that elaborated the conspiracy, those plans were made in Washington, there are the most guilty people of the events that took place, of course there are local people that are guilty too, but don't loose the proportions of the responsabilities.

The conspiracy of overthrowing the democracy was the limit of our support. Our government decided not to pursue the Human Rights violations because the bigger threat were the Soviets, but we had no active participation or support in those atrocities. Again, if I knew then what I know now, I would want our government to go in and correct that mistake by taking out Pinochet.

Again, Internal problems are completly different from External.

All countries have made terrible mistakes by it's own people.

A few countries have made EXTERNAL DEPLORABLE THINGS, by interrupting democratic process.

Chile and other countries have a CLEAN background of External foreing policy.

And Chile has never had the sole responsibility of defending the free world from oppressive tyranny either.

Nor have they had the power to step in and take on the responsibility of protecting the weak from their own oppresive governments.

And if a countries democratic decisions directly threaten our national security, as Chile's was about to in becoming communist(or so we thought at the time), or Afghanistan votes in Al Queda as their leaders, then we have every right to disrupt those processes in our own protection. Just because a government becomes domocratic, doesn't mean that they are automatically good.

Hell, Hitler was made chancellor by the elected president of the time. He had majority support in Germany, yet would you do nothing to stop him if you had the means? Would you call this baseless meddling? I wouldn't be suprised if Edric did, I would hope that you have more sense.

Carried out by chileans.

Planned by the CIA and approved by Nixon and other presidents of US.

In any court of law, the worst penalty always go to the person(s) who planned the plot.

The ovethrow of the democratic government was approved by the CIA, but the assasinations were not in that plan. These were Pinochet's doing.

I thought that for the US (and let's say UK too), freedom and democracy were the MOST important core values of a country and it's society.

However, so far I've never read anything that somehow make me undertand that the best way to promote and protect freedom and democracy is by destroying it and placing dictatorial terror regimes in other places. Yes, you read it right, TERROR was the name of the game the US played to protect democracy and freedom. Such a hypocracy !

Freedom and democracy are not interchangeable. Freedom is very important, but at the time stopping the Soviets was top priority. If that meant sacrificing some of the smaller democracies to prevent the spread of communism, then we had to chose the lesser of two evils. Again, we were wrong, but as I have said before, we now have the benefit of hindsight to show us that.

Terror was the name of the game for Pinochet. We had NO involvement in those plans, although we did nothing to stop them (which was our mistake).

It is difficult for you to see the bigger picture, and I understand that as I'm sure you are close to the suffering caused, but we were not fighting for your immediate freedom, but to protect the WHOLE world from the Soviets. Again, it was a big, ugly chess game, and I'm sorry your pawn was sacrificed for the greater good. No hypocrasy, the game was just much bigger than you are capable of seeing.

I am absolutely sure, (and this affects any situation regardless time or year), that the best way to promote democracy and freedom is by SUPPORTING IT and PROTECTING IT.

At the cold war days, TERROR was the tool the USSR used to promote it's foreing policy, but instead of protecting it, the US used TERROR too.

We did things that are regretable, but the cold war would have been lost if we hadn't had the will to sacrifice some of our pawns. I don't condone what the US did to your country, and I wish it had been handled differently, but things got f*cked up during the cold war, and you are wrong to judge our current government by the mistakes of that confused time.

That's why I see no difference in today events, that's why I do not believe the US will protect HR in Iraq for example, as you know any muslim is a potential terrorist for the US. I won't say that all Iraqui people that actually live inside support Saddam, but I think that the majority do, and those will be instantly killed by the invasion forces. It's a war and at any thread the language of weapons dominates.

On what do you base the assumption that most Iraqi's support Saddam? We base ours on the overwhelming statements made by Iraqi defectors. We don't trust the propoganda coming from Iraq because we know that Saddam kills those who oppose him.

Last, to show you that your country still have an hypocracy policy, US didn't released all the classified documents they have about the CIA conspiracy for 17 years. In all the reports released, ALL NAMES WERE ERASED, because those people (agents) who made and executed the conspiracy are still alive, and your country is protecting those killers by hidding their identity in order to prevent the action of justice. It shows that there is no really a commitment to solve this problem. If they could be taken to justice, sure more information would be known in order to provide some peace to the families that suffered and are still suffering.

Look at the date at the end of 17 years, what major world event took place one-year before 1990 that would have allowed us to declassify previously sensitive materials?

We will protect those involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the believed soon-to-be communist government. We will not however have them charged for crimes committed by Chileans. The decision to overthrow the government of Chile was a tactical one made at a time of war. However, while we were wrong to turn our heads from the assasinations, NO Americans were involved in them, therefore, we will not allow a witch-hunt in order to satisfy your hatred. hypocrasy, no. Until you can prove that Americans were directly involved in the planning and/or execution of these crimes, we will protect their names to keep some fanatical Chilean from coming up here and murdering them.

[Miles]

I think he meant every generation has something it views as a threat, and uses it as a scapegoat. The World War I and slightly post WW1 Generation had the Germans. The Baby Boomers (My parents generation) had the Communists (Soviets who were more Facist/Socialist than Communist). And the current generation has Terrorists.

No I don't agree with you Ordos. The Soviets were a legitimate threat, which we were justified in defending ourselves against. However, the responsibility for our mistakes must be ours. I just disagree with Zamboe on our level of blame in Chile, especially in the climate of the times.

[Edric O]

The Soviets were a legitimate threat, which we were justified in defending ourselves against. However, the responsibility for our mistakes must be ours. I just disagree with Zamboe on our level of blame in Chile, especially in the climate of the times.

Of course you were justified to DEFEND yourselves. But you didn't just defend, you went on the offensive. You deprived another country of its democracy in order to "defend" yourselves? This is no defence. It's a blatant unprovoked ATTACK. You had no right to do what you did in Chile, or in Vietnam.

We did things that are regretable, but the cold war would have been lost if we hadn't had the will to sacrifice some of our pawns.

So that's how it goes, doesn't it? Pawns! Did it ever cross your mind that these "pawns" of yours were independent nations with rights of their own?

Freedom is very important, but at the time stopping the Soviets was top priority. If that meant sacrificing some of the smaller democracies to prevent the spread of communism, then we had to chose the lesser of two evils.

First, you had no right to do so. They weren't yours to sacrifice. You have no right to dictate other countries what to do. In fact, by doing so, you were no better than the Soviets.

Second, the spread of communism was, in my opinion, a VERY GOOD thing. Not every communist country would have ended up like Russia, you know. Some would have gone the right path to communism and avoided people like Stalin. But you didn't give them that chance.

Third, you weren't even sure if Allende was a communist. There is a pretty good chance he wasn't, in which case your paranoia caused 17 years of suffering for the Chilean people.

Read VERY, VERY carefully Edric so that you don't get confused again... We defended the world from the Soviet Union, and in that giant game of chess called the cold war, mistakes were made, but I don't think that anyone on this board or in the free world wishes that the Soviets would have won so that they could live under the freedoms that Russia enjoyed.

You should remember that, in the end, all your Cold War efforts proved to be futile and unncecessary. You never defeated the Soviet Union. It just collapsed on its own. So if Chile had been communist, it would have made no difference.

This is too much... freedom fighter...from the Soviet Union, are you so delusional in your hatred for America that you actually believe that.

Delusional? If wanting a better future for the people and the eradication of poverty is delusional, then by all means, I'm insane.

Just as you accuse me of failing to see the big picture, you fail to see it from any other point of view than your own. The Russians are people just like you, with hopes and dreams. Their government was oppressive, but it needn't stay like that forever.

And in some countries (like Cuba and Vietnam), the communist rebels were indeed freedom fighters, in the strictest sense of the word. They fought against a far greater oppressor (the fascist dictator Batista in Cuba and the French colonial government in Vietnam). In both cases, the greater oppressor was supported by the US. So, in fact, you supported the GREATER of the two evils, against the freedom fighters who wished to liberate their country.

[Miles]

Of course you were justified to DEFEND yourselves. But you didn't just defend, you went on the offensive. You deprived another country of its democracy in order to "defend" yourselves? This is no defence. It's a blatant unprovoked ATTACK. You had no right to do what you did in Chile, or in Vietnam.

We had to go on the offensive in order to defend ourselves from the Soviet threat. Chile (if they became communist) probably would have allied themselves with Russia. It would have been the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, and maybe this time things don't turn out so well. We had EVERY right to defend ourselves, and the rest of the world from a chain of events that could, very likely, lead us to global thermonuclear war. This is the big picture you are missing. (The same goes for Vietnam)

So that's how it goes, doesn't it? Pawns! Did it ever cross your mind that these "pawns" of yours were independent nations with rights of their own?

Yes pawns, in a game as big as saving the world from thermonuclear war, they became pawns. Unfortunate, but necessary

First, you had no right to do so. They weren't yours to sacrifice. You have no right to dictate other countries what to do. In fact, by doing so, you were no better than the Soviets.

If it meant survival of the species, then hell yes we had the right. Do you realize how close we came to nucler war on many occasions. The fallout could have wrecked the planet for everyone. In order to prevent this, we had every right to dictate to other countries in order to mainatain the strategic balance which prevented this from happening.

Second, the spread of communism was, in my opinion, a VERY GOOD thing. Not every communist country would have ended up like Russia, you know. Some would have gone the right path to communism and avoided people like Stalin. But you didn't give them that chance.

Third, you weren't even sure if Allende was a communist. There is a pretty good chance he wasn't, in which case your paranoia caused 17 years of suffering for the Chilean people.

Maybe every country would not have been like Russia, and Maybe Allende was not a communist, but these are risks that at the time our government felt it couldn't take. Remember Cuba.

You should remember that, in the end, all your Cold War efforts proved to be futile and unncecessary. You never defeated the Soviet Union. It just collapsed on its own. So if Chile had been communist, it would have made no difference.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of the mass amounts of money spent by them on the cold war, and the neglect of the Soviet government to it's people. The battle of attrition was won by us.

I don't think that preventing nuclear exchange was futile and unnecessary. Maybe you would like to live in nuclear winter, but I'm glad that nuclear holocaust was prevented.

Who knows what the shift in leverage that a communist state in Chile would have given the Soviets. Fortunately, this didn't come to pass.

Delusional? If wanting a better future for the people and the eradication of poverty is delusional, then by all means, I'm insane.{/quote]

If you think that this is what the Soviets stand for, then you ARE insane. And if you think that human nature can be repressed by communism in a positive way, then YOU are naive.

Just as you accuse me of failing to see the big picture, you fail to see it from any other point of view than your own.

Wrong, I am a realist, and am trying to see the Chilean incident through the eyes of the Americans who lived during that time. I don't agree with our actions, I think they were wrong, but as I have said, I have the benefit of hindsight. I don't applaud the US's actions in Chile, but I try to understand the reasoning behind it. Realize that I am not looking at it from my view, but the view of those who were engaged in the nasty mess of the Cold war.

The Russians are people just like you, with hopes and dreams. Their government was oppressive, but it needn't stay like that forever.

And in some countries (like Cuba and Vietnam), the communist rebels were indeed freedom fighters, in the strictest sense of the word. They fought against a far greater oppressor (the fascist dictator Batista in Cuba and the French colonial government in Vietnam). In both cases, the greater oppressor was supported by the US. So, in fact, you supported the GREATER of the two evils, against the freedom fighters who wished to liberate their country.

Because you want to judge us based on hindsight. At the time, it was believed that Communism was the greatest enemy. In retrospect, we can say that there were worse evils, and that we supported them, but there was no way for the people of that time to know that. They acted in what they thought was the best interest of the country and the World in preventing nuclear holocaust. Were they perfect, NO, and they made some horrific mistakes, but they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that we have today.

My point is that the millions that died due to our terrible mistakes during the cold war were tragic, but they pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions that would have died in a nuclear holocaust. Many of the actions taken by both sides were wrong, but it doesn't make them evil, it just makes them wrong.

Our government was wrong to do what they did to Chile, and to Vietnam, but their intentions were to maintain balance and prevent nuclear war. That is the bigger picture you are missing.

[zamboe]

You misunderstand my points. I would not support what my government did in 1973, but then again I have the benefit of hindsight, which as you know is always 20-20, but I understand the thinking that went behind this terrible mistake, as I think our government does now. Which is why Clinton released CIA information to help in the trial of Pinochet. Yet you want to judge our current president based on mistakes 30 years ago during a time when we were grasping to keep the world from nuclear war, and Soviet domination.

Benefit of the hindsight, fair enough and true.

However, historic events teach some lessons, what US did back then proved several things we discussed before, and those lessons have been forgoten by the current US administration.

I don't judge presidents, I judge policies. As I mentioned before, I judge and condem the policy your country had for 17 years (first support, later blind eye) without importance of whom were presidents in those 17 years.

Our support of Pinochet was to stop communism, not to support Human Rights violations. Pinochet among other countries in the region carried those out. If I could go back, I would support our government correcting our mistake by taking out Pinochet. Just as I would have us now correct our mistake of not removing Saddam Hussein from power by taking him out now. No hypocrasy, and I hope you see that now.

I understand better but I don't agree.

However there seems to be some kind of basic disagreement in the interpretation you made and I make. I accept that CIA conspiracy had a final goal a war against communism, that's true, However I do believe that US support were also in the terrible murders and tortures to those suppoused communist leaders (which were not, at least not all of them) US knew that those people need to be killed and supported it, that is HR violation, call it TERROR.

Again, in hindsight it was a mistake, but in the defense of democracy on a world level, yes ours was more important, because we were the last line against the spread of communism and the Soviets. What the hell was Chile going to do to stop the Soviets?

You mention a point where we could enter in a more deep debate, which is not the case I think.

Communism and Capitalism in it's pure form are neutral (not good or bad), it's the way the states promote it and apply that makes so big distortions that lead us to terrible examples like the USSR and US.

I'd like to understand that what you call "line against the spread of communism and Soviets" was actually a fight against Soviets (that I completly support), but it cannot be a fight agains communism, because I said before that phylosopical/political theory of state is neutral.

Going back on topic. I would ask: Do the a democratic government has a right to promote socialist changes with the approval of the majority of the people ? YES.

Did Chile had to stop the communism ?. It had to choose between communism and capitalism.

Did Chile had to stop Soviets ? SURE. , Did Chile did it ? YES. Did Chile used to TERROR with the help of CIA to do it ? YES.

And you are completely wrong, principles DO change over time, depending on the battles you are fighting and the magnitude of the outcome.

I am not wrong.

It's obvious the principles i am talking about is Freedom and Democracy.

Do those principles have changed ?, NO.

Those are the exactly same principles that inspired since the foundation of many countries, those have not changed.

Let me put in this way, I am on the team that DO NOT change core principles NEVER, if I'd do so then it would lead me to hypocracy.

The conspiracy of overthrowing the democracy was the limit of our support. Our government decided not to pursue the Human Rights violations because the bigger threat were the Soviets, but we had no active participation or support in those atrocities.

It seems that we won't agree about if there was actually US support of HR violations.

You have to understand that the objective issue is that a goverment cannot support a plan and not support the means to acomplish it at the same time, in that case the plan wouldn't work and the US would have lost it's battle against the soviets.

Just because a government becomes domocratic, doesn't mean that they are automatically good.

That's not a concept or objective analisis, that's your opinion, that I don't agree with.

Hell, Hitler was made chancellor by the elected president of the time. He had majority support in Germany, yet would you do nothing to stop him if you had the means? Would you call this baseless meddling? I wouldn't be suprised if Edric did, I would hope that you have more sense.

You are comparing Chilean democracy with Hitler, that's discusting, provocative and insulting.

Chile did not have a huge army.

Chile did not invade any country or planned to invade anyone.

Chile did not declared any race or religion inferior.

Your country did something terrible to a country that didn't represent a thread to anyone. Just pure paranoia.

The ovethrow of the democratic government was approved by the CIA, but the assasinations were not in that plan. These were Pinochet's doing.

That's washing your hands.

You expected the CIA wanted that Pinochet use roses and letters to take the power and stop the democratic leaders.

It is difficult for you to see the bigger picture, and I understand that as I'm sure you are close to the suffering caused, but we were not fighting for your immediate freedom, but to protect the WHOLE world from the Soviets. Again, it was a big, ugly chess game, and I'm sorry your pawn was sacrificed for the greater good. No hypocrasy, the game was just much bigger than you are capable of seeing.

I won't judge anyones capability to see or not the big picture.

What I can tell you is that by only focusing on the big picture, you forget to see the micro events and by doing that it usually makes you go against your own principle.

There needs to be a balance between the action based on how the big picture looks and the action for the small events.

I could say that you only consider the big picture only, but that wouldn't lead us anywhere.

We did things that are regretable, but the cold war would have been lost if we hadn't had the will to sacrifice some of our pawns. I don't condone what the US did to your country, and I wish it had been handled differently, but things got f*cked up during the cold war, and you are wrong to judge our current government by the mistakes of that confused time.

You fail to see the similar situations between historical events and current situations, that makes me judge your gov. foreing policy because I see the same mistakes comming fast.

Look at the date at the end of 17 years, what major world event took place one-year before 1990 that would have allowed us to declassify previously sensitive materials?

We will protect those involved in the conspiracy to overthrow the believed soon-to-be communist government. We will not however have them charged for crimes committed by Chileans. Therefore, we will not allow a witch-hunt in order to satisfy your hatred. hypocrasy, no. Until you can prove that Americans were directly involved in the planning and/or execution of these crimes, we will protect their names to keep some fanatical Chilean from coming up here and murdering them.

Isn't planning a conspiracy a crime ?

Let me put it this way, There is no proof that actually Bin Laden has actually killed someone himself. Then he is not guilty for the terrible events that took place 9/11?, then Bin Laden as the planning leader is not guilty at all, such an opinion you have !, hypocracy.

I am just asking that those names must be known, because if those US citizens planned, executed, jumped, shared, fired, talked or whatever action was, IS THE JUSTICE IN A COURT OF LAW THAT SHOULD DECIDE IF THEY HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY IN THAT. (If they actually did something).

The fact of not releasing their names is because they know they have issues that are not good. I've never seen such an hypocratic attitude of a government so far.

When you say "We will not allow a witch-hunt in order to satisfy your hatred", that shows your hatred and your arrogance, I want them in a court of law, the judge and a jury have to decide if they have responsability or not. Do you agree with that ?. Or are you against justice too?

Btw, I didn't answer some specific comments about Iraq, since this whole post is not about Iraq (it may have some comments), there are several Iraq debates in other posts, I hope you can stay on topic please.

[Miles]

Benefit of the hindsight, fair enough and true.

However, historic events teach some lessons, what US did back then proved several things we discussed before, and those lessons have been forgoten by the current US administration.

I don't judge presidents, I judge policies. As I mentioned before, I judge and condem the policy your country had for 17 years (first support, later blind eye) without importance of whom were presidents in those 17 years.

Hopefully you understand that I judge and condemn that policy as well, but I don't think that the situation with Iraq, and the situation in Chile are parallels. Our leadership and our policies are much different now thanks to the end of the Cold war, and I think it has been wrong to ignore human rights violations both then and now.

I would also like to say that understand, and sympathise with your countries position. If I were a Chilean, I would be pissed off too. It angers me some of the levels our government has stooped to in the past.

However, I am very proud of our accomplishments in world and domestic affairs, and while we may rank among the worst in horrific mistakes, I think we are head and shoulders above anyone in the great things that we have done.

And let me put it to you this way (mind you this is aimed mostly towards Edric, since I understand your anger). If I judged every person I met on their most terrible mistakes, and ignored their qualities, then I would hate everyone I met. America has done bad things, and we have done good things, but we are, by no means, and evil empire.

I understand better but I don't agree.

However there seems to be some kind of basic disagreement in the interpretation you made and I make. I accept that CIA conspiracy had a final goal a war against communism, that's true, However I do believe that US support were also in the terrible murders and tortures to those suppoused communist leaders (which were not, at least not all of them) US knew that those people need to be killed and supported it, that is HR violation, call it TERROR.

I cannot deny the possibility, and if there is evidence then it needs to be brought forth, and those guilty punished, although I do not find it likely that we actively participated in these acts, approved of, maybe, but particiapated and planned, probably not. Pinochet did not need our help.

You mention a point where we could enter in a more deep debate, which is not the case I think.

Communism and Capitalism in it's pure form are neutral (not good or bad), it's the way the states promote it and apply that makes so big distortions that lead us to terrible examples like the USSR and US.

I'd like to understand that what you call "line against the spread of communism and Soviets" was actually a fight against Soviets (that I completly support), but it cannot be a fight agains communism, because I said before that phylosopical/political theory of state is neutral.

Going back on topic.

But as I have said, we see that now in hindsight. At the time, people may not have made that distinction since ALL communist countries allied themselves with Russia. I have intentionally put the two together to demonstrate the in the confusion of the cold war, this line was harder to see. Of course we see it now.

I would ask: Do the a democratic government has a right to promote socialist changes with the approval of the majority of the people ? YES.

Did Chile had to stop the communism ?. It had to choose between communism and capitalism.

Did Chile had to stop Soviets ? SURE. , Did Chile did it ? YES. Did Chile used to TERROR with the help of CIA to do it ? YES.

ok, this is not attack on you, but your English is getting a little hazy now. I hope I understand you well enough to respond properly, but if not, I apologize.

And because you realize that these acts were carried out by past governments, you do not condemn the Chilean government as evil. Nixon and Kissinger are not two of my favorite people anyway, and they instigated the plot to overthrow the democratic government and to conceal that we knew of the assasinations that followed. But it is not right to condemn the nation as a whole, or our current government by mistakes made in the past, especially during a time as messed up as the height of the cold war.

I am not wrong.

It's obvious the principles i am talking about is Freedom and Democracy.

Do those principles have changed ?, NO.

Those are the exactly same principles that inspired since the foundation of many countries, those have not changed.

Let me put in this way, I am on the team that DO NOT change core principles NEVER, if I'd do so then it would lead me to hypocracy.

You are wrong. Necessity dictates principles. Freedoms in the past have been justly suspended in order to protect the greater good. Democracy is not always a good thing, especially in a country of people misinformed by government propoganda, as the Germans were of Hitler. This is not hypocracy, this is realism. The world is not the rose colored place that we all want it to be. Principles have to be somewhat flexible for survival.

It seems that we won't agree about if there was actually US support of HR violations.

You have to understand that the objective issue is that a goverment cannot support a plan and not support the means to acomplish it at the same time, in that case the plan wouldn't work and the US would have lost it's battle against the soviets.

I will concede the possibility that the CIA may have had some involvement in the assasinations. If that is the case, then I am deeply embarrassed of our actions, although I see no evidence that supports anything further than our involvement in Allende's overthrow, and our willingness to look the other way while Pinochet carried out his deeds.

That's not a concept or objective analisis, that's your opinion, that I don't agree with.

Was Hitler's legitimate democratic rise to power good? I will repeat, democracy is not always a good thing, especially in a country with misinformed and angry people.

You are comparing Chilean democracy with Hitler, that's discusting, provocative and insulting.

Chile did not have a huge army.

Chile did not invade any country or planned to invade anyone.

Chile did not declared any race or religion inferior.

No, I am merely proving my point that democracy is not always good. I am not comparing Chile to Hitler.

Your country did something terrible to a country that didn't represent a thread to anyone. Just pure paranoia.

If they had become communist, allied themselves with Russia and started housing masses of Soviet troops, and long range nuclear weapons, then they were a possible threat. This may have been paranoia, but it was backed by the previous actions of the Soviet Union.

That's washing your hands.

You expected the CIA wanted that Pinochet use roses and letters to take the power and stop the democratic leaders.

No, he would use force, but I think that his future actions against possible opposers was unforseen by the US. I seriously doubt that the CIA was in on the assasinations, but I do concede it as a possibility. At the very least, our willingness to ignore these actions was in some way encouragement, and we do bear some of the blame. I have not denied this. To quote Powell, "It is a point in our history that we aren't proud of" but we have taken measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

I won't judge anyones capability to see or not the big picture.

What I can tell you is that by only focusing on the big picture, you forget to see the micro events and by doing that it usually makes you go against your own principle.

There needs to be a balance between the action based on how the big picture looks and the action for the small events.

I could say that you only consider the big picture only, but that wouldn't lead us anywhere.

No, I have looked at the micro events that you have brought up, and I find our actions deplorable. If I could go back in time, I would insist that our government take out Pinochet. I would not, however, ask the US to allow Chile to become a communist state, because who knows what reprocussions it would have on the chain of events leading to the end of the cold war.

You fail to see the similar situations between historical events and current situations, that makes me judge your gov. foreing policy because I see the same mistakes comming fast.

And you fail to see the differences. The main one being, Human rights. This time we are on the right side.

Isn't planning a conspiracy a crime ?

Let me put it this way, There is no proof that actually Bin Laden has actually killed someone himself. Then he is not guilty for the terrible events that took place 9/11?, then Bin Laden as the planning leader is not guilty at all, such an opinion you have !, hypocracy.

It was no more a crime to remove a potential communist government, than it was to remove the terror supporting Taliban,(I am not comparing Chile to the Taliban, but the perception of the cold war would have.) and until you can prove that the US was involved in the oppression of opposition in Chile AFTER Pinochet was in power, then this analogy doesn't hold water. Ignoring, or even approving of a crime is not a crime in itself, if it was, then many muslims would be guilty for dancing in the streets after 9-11.

I am just asking that those names must be known, because if those US citizens planned, executed, jumped, shared, fired, talked or whatever action was, IS THE JUSTICE IN A COURT OF LAW THAT SHOULD DECIDE IF THEY HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY IN THAT. (If they actually did something).

The fact of not releasing their names is because they know they have issues that are not good. I've never seen such an hypocratic attitude of a government so far.

You have to show evidence that they were directly involved in the assassinations of opposers AFTER Pinochet was in office, otherwise, these names could serve as a death warrant for these people from angry Chileans who want to take justice in their own hands. I would suspect that Kissinger knew of, and possibly approved of these actions, but I doubt any CIA agents were involved in the planning or execution of these acts outside of the overthrow of Allande.

When you say "We will not allow a witch-hunt in order to satisfy your hatred", that shows your hatred and your arrogance, I want them in a court of law, the judge and a jury have to decide if they have responsability or not. Do you agree with that ?. Or are you against justice too?

Show the evidence of specific American involvement in conspiracies in the years following Pinochet's coup. Then you will have a base for hauling them into justice. In any court, you must have a solid case before it goes to trial. I am for justice dont the right way.

[Edric O]

Btw, Miles, you should fix those quotes from my posts. The colours are mixed up...

Now on to the point:

If you think that this is what the Soviets stand for, then you ARE insane. And if you think that human nature can be repressed by communism in a positive way, then YOU are naive.

No, those are the things that communism stands for, not the Soviets (unfortunetaly). However, that could have changed. People like Gorbachev would have brought the USSR back on the true path of communism... if they would have come to power sooner. Gorbachev was too late...

As for human nature, it is one of the most disgusting lies of corporate propaganda that capitalism is somehow inherent in human nature. 18th century politicians said the exact same thing about absolutism.

I have faith in Humanity. Based on the fact that we are not born evil. We learn the ways of capitalism as we grow... Capitalist greed in not inherent in human nature. Otherwise I would not be here today arguing against it.

We had EVERY right to defend ourselves, and the rest of the world from a chain of events that could, very likely, lead us to global thermonuclear war. This is the big picture you are missing. (The same goes for Vietnam)

......

Yes pawns, in a game as big as saving the world from thermonuclear war, they became pawns. Unfortunate, but necessary.

......

If it meant survival of the species, then hell yes we had the right. Do you realize how close we came to nucler war on many occasions. The fallout could have wrecked the planet for everyone.

......

I don't think that preventing nuclear exchange was futile and unnecessary. Maybe you would like to live in nuclear winter, but I'm glad that nuclear holocaust was prevented.

You are completely obsessed by this idea of nuclear war. You talk as if the Soviets were a bunch of trigger-happy gun-totting maniacs. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviets themselves were terrified that YOU would stop at nothing to destroy them, and they were afraid of YOU starting a nuclear war. I am from Romania. My parents and grandparents lived through the Cuban missile crisis on this side of the iron curtain, so I know what I'm talking about.

In the sixties, the USA had FIVE TIMES as many nuclear warheads as the Soviet Union. The missiles in Cuba were meant to compensate for this horrible disadvantage. They only wanted to defend themselves, just like you.

And to make matters worse, the US had a history of actually USING its nuclear weapons in war. So the prevailing reasoning was: "If they did it before, who's to say they won't do it again?" The Soviets were just as justified to be afraid as you were.

Some time ago, Namp posted these lyrics to a song by Sting. I think they are very suitable for the topic at hand:

Russians

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria

Conditioned to respond to all the threats

In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets

Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you

I don't subscribe to this point of view

It would be such an ignorant thing to do

If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy

There is no monopoly in common sense

On either side of the political fence

We share the same biology

Regardless of ideology

Believe me when I say to you

I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent

To put the words in the mouth of the President

There's no such thing as a winnable war

It's a lie that we don't believe anymore

Mr. Reagan says we will protect you

I don't subscribe to this point of view

Believe me when I say to you

I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology

Regardless of ideology

What might save us, me, and you

Is that the Russians love their children too

Also, it seems we do agree on a number of things:

In retrospect, we can say that there were worse evils, and that we supported them, but there was no way for the people of that time to know that. They acted in what they thought was the best interest of the country and the World in preventing nuclear holocaust. Were they perfect, NO, and they made some horrific mistakes, but they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that we have today.

......

Our government was wrong to do what they did to Chile, and to Vietnam, but their intentions were to maintain balance and prevent nuclear war.

So you agree with me that your government made some horrible mistakes in the past, and supported the greater evil a number of times. Good, at least we're getting somewhere with this discussion.

The point I'm trying to make is that their actions are not excusable. Of course, it is natural for any human to make mistakes. It is also natural to assume responsibility for them.

Now tell me: What guarantee do I have that you won't make mistakes again? Is your government infallible all of a sudden?

[Miles]

Btw, Miles, you should fix those quotes from my posts. The colours are mixed up...

Now on to the point:

If you think that this is what the Soviets stand for, then you ARE insane. And if you think that human nature can be repressed by communism in a positive way, then YOU are naive.

No, those are the things that communism stands for, not the Soviets (unfortunetaly). However, that could have changed. People like Gorbachev would have brought the USSR back on the true path of communism... if they would have come to power sooner. Gorbachev was too late...

As for human nature, it is one of the most disgusting lies of corporate propaganda that capitalism is somehow inherent in human nature. 18th century politicians said the exact same thing about absolutism.

It is an evolutionary fact, and inherent in our genes. Corporations had nothing to do with the aquisition of this knowledge.

I respect Gorbachev. How could you not respect a guy who helped end the madness of the cold war along with Reagan.

He would have failed though, in bringing communism to fruition, just as many before him had.

I have faith in Humanity. Based on the fact that we are not born evil. We learn the ways of capitalism as we grow... Capitalist greed in not inherent in human nature. Otherwise I would not be here today arguing against it.

Sorry, competition is in our genes. It is a part of our evolution, and it is something that no only brings out the worst in us, but also brings out the best. Communism would bring about a sense of mediocrity that would destroy our will to achieve more. However, I will not respond again to this since it is off-topic and needs to be on another thread.

You are completely obsessed by this idea of nuclear war. You talk as if the Soviets were a bunch of trigger-happy gun-totting maniacs. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Soviets themselves were terrified that YOU would stop at nothing to destroy them, and they were afraid of YOU starting a nuclear war. I am from Romania. My parents and grandparents lived through the Cuban missile crisis on this side of the iron curtain, so I know what I'm talking about.

In the sixties, the USA had FIVE TIMES as many nuclear warheads as the Soviet Union. The missiles in Cuba were meant to compensate for this horrible disadvantage. They only wanted to defend themselves, just like you.

And to make matters worse, the US had a history of actually USING its nuclear weapons in war. So the prevailing reasoning was: "If they did it before, who's to say they won't do it again?" The Soviets were just as justified to be afraid as you were.

Sure they did. I agree totally with you. This blinding fear from both sides is exactly what caused both of us to make terrible mistakes. Neither side was evil, but fear can make good people do bad things.

The missiles in Cuba were completely destabalizing to the situation and Kruschev new this. There is no way in hell, we were about to allow them to stay, or to let them plant nuclear weapons anywhere else in our hemishpere. The planting of the missiles in Cuba was an aggressive move and intolerable by the US.

I do not paint the Russians as "trigger happy" any more than I do the US. Again, I'm a realist. But situations like the Cuban missile crisis can spin out of the control of either side. Do you realize how close that came? You say I'm obsessed, hell yes, it is central in any decision made in that era.

Also, it seems we do agree on a number of things:

In retrospect, we can say that there were worse evils, and that we supported them, but there was no way for the people of that time to know that. They acted in what they thought was the best interest of the country and the World in preventing nuclear holocaust. Were they perfect, NO, and they made some horrific mistakes, but they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that we have today.

......

Our government was wrong to do what they did to Chile, and to Vietnam, but their intentions were to maintain balance and prevent nuclear war.

So you agree with me that your government made some horrible mistakes in the past, and supported the greater evil a number of times. Good, at least we're getting somewhere with this discussion.

Yes, I agree, but where we differ is that I see this as the exception not the rule.

The point I'm trying to make is that their actions are not excusable. Of course, it is natural for any human to make mistakes. It is also natural to assume responsibility for them.

But mistakes are understandable if you look at the perception of the time. As I've said many times, hindsight is always 20/20. The problem is that you do not recognize our good deeds. Your view is one sided so you will never be convinced. For all the lives lost we have been responsible for, many more have been saved through our good deeds.

Now tell me: What guarantee do I have that you won't make mistakes again? Is your government infallible all of a sudden?

You have no absolute guarantee. In fact I guarantee that at some point we will make more mistakes. The only thing I can say, is look at our recent actions in Kosovo, and Afghanistan. We have followed up our use of force with what we promised--food, medicine, and a chance for freedom. You will see this happen again in Iraq. But you will believe what you want to, and even if it goes as I say, you still won't admit to being wrong, so who the hell cares?

[Acriku]

In what way is capitalism inherent in our genes?

[Edric O]

I'm wondering the same thing...

You'd think we would know by now if they found a capitalism gene when they decoded the human genome. ;)

Miles, competition is not in our genes. What IS in our genes is a pursuit of happiness and personal comfort. Competition is only one of the ways to achieve that.