Miles : a piece of US history for you.

[Acriku]

Some who know not of happiness, fail to wish for it.

But when shown the light of it, they crave every bit.

*Acriku exits the standing ovation*

[Anathema]

At the time, people may not have made that distinction since ALL communist countries allied themselves with Russia.

False. Castro was forced by the US into the arms of the Soviet Union because the US began economical sanctions. I don't recall Chile ever being a Soviet ally, and if it was, do you think the US would have attacked them?

Democracy is not always a good thing, especially in a country of people misinformed by government propoganda, as the Germans were of Hitler

Supposedly, if the Europeans would invade America and actually win (don't elaborate how, because I'm aware we wouldn't), because we felt that the American people were misinformed by Bush, would it be the right thing? Who is to judge wich person is the new Hitler and who isn't? The United States of America?

f 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.

If you're referring to the Cuba crisis, the Soviets' actions back then were completely justified. Namely because the US had multiple allies near the Soviet union, namely Turkey, South Korea, Japan and more. The US even had nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey. Note that the SU retreated their nukes from Cuba under the condition that the US would do the same thing with Turkey, and that the government only announced that little detail ten years later, while everybody believed this was a huge victory for the US while in fact it was a strategical loss. Meanwhile you're qualifying other nations people as misinformed.

but we have taken measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

And we have to take your word for it?

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

Excuse me? Reagan is famous for how he called the Soviet Union "an evil empire", and half a dozen other things, wich didn't really improve foreign relations.

[Miles]

Acriku, I meant competitition for personal gain. If you doubt that look in nature.

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.

competition for personal gain is universal through nature. Why would that tendancy not exist within humans?

[Acriku]

What do you mean by personal gain? Do you mean luxury, or survival? And I don't think it is in our genes for luxury, but more environmental. For survival, well that may be our instinct, but we risk our lives everyday saving children or pets from burning houses, or if devoted to the animal kind risk their lives saving a squirrel or cat. But then again, the instinct of survival branches out to the survival of the "pack" or "kind," seen in nature, like a mother protecting her child over herself, or the whole pack protecting the others over themselves. But we do overcome that survival instinct such as committing suicide, mass/serial murder, war, etc. So, in conclusion I think it is more environmental in this case, to do with our society and way we grow up.

[zamboe]

Miles,

Let's try get some conclussions. I think it's time to do it, since in many aspects we've already described our positions with detail.

I think we agree in the following subjects :

1. Condem the US policy and conspiration against Chilean democracy in 1973.

2. Condem the US support to Chilean dictatorial government.

3. Condem the violations of the HR violations in Chile during 17 years.

4. Action against Soviets expanssion was needed, but US used TERROR to do that.

We don't agree in :

1. I say the the CIA also has a great blame in the HR violations in Chile, in the execution and planning stage. You say the CIA had nothing to do with the HR violations, that it was 100% responsability of Pinochet.

2. I say the US is still being hypocrite for not providing all the information they have about the plot and the HR violations. You say the US don't have to.

3. Freedom and Democracy for me are values that cannot change it's means of action over time, you think the opposite.

That's pretty much a summit I could do, if I've forgotten something please you add it.

Now, my final remarks about your last post.

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.

This is actually a step forward in our debate.

You recognized that the possibility exists. Then it's the justice in a court of law should determine if those US and Chilean citizens are guilty or not. To acomplish that US must give the names of the CIA agents that participated in the conspiration against Chile, those CIA agents are still alive. Let Justice do their work. Do you agree with that ?

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.

I'll be more carefull with my gramatics. Sorry for that.

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.

There is a BIG difference, between a that regime and a government.

I condem the Chilean dictatorial regime, that was not a government, that was not the Chilean people's will.

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.

I seriously doubt that the CIA was in on the assasinations, but I do concede it as a possibility.

Then let's allow a fair trial process and the Justice will decide if that possibility is true or not. If there were CIA agents involved in HR violations, they must be in jale, (already in Chile 2 ministers of Pinochet are in jale right now). The issue is not if you see or not evidence, it's the justice in a court of law who should decide. In order to correct the BIG f*cking mistake US did to Chile, US should provide ALL the information and names they have, that would restore some peace of those families that suffered so much and still do. Justice, just justice.

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

I don't think so. I believe that there is big mistake about to happen again.

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 don't have to prove it myself. Those agents involved in the events of 1973 must prove their innocence in a court of law, because they had participation on it. However, the US in a hypocrit attitude says that it's not something to be proud of but at the same time they protect people who are probably guilty.

I still understanding that based on your view, Bin Laden is not guilty because he didn't executed himself the crashes against the TT.

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.

You have to understand that months before Pinochet left the power, almost all the evidence that was in Chile was destroyed. The other source of information is the US, but they do not provide all they have.

We certanly don't need to agree on everything.

[Miles]

False. Castro was forced by the US into the arms of the Soviet Union because the US began economical sanctions. I don't recall Chile ever being a Soviet ally, and if it was, do you think the US would have attacked them?

The disontinuation of aid to Cuba was a result of Casro's radical actions which included executing and imprisoning political opponents (sounds familiar to this discussion doesn't it), and extreme hostility to the US which had been friendly to Batista. Would you expect us to stay friednly with Cuba after that?

Casro drove himself into the Soviets alliance through his allienation of the US.

Chile did not become a communist state. You should read previous posts before you respond. Certainly Castro's actions would have made us extremely nervous of other communist states arising in the region.

I don't think we would have directly attacked Chile if they had become communist, but I think we would have supported rebel forces to overthrow the communist regime, as we did with Pinochet. As it turns out we were wrong, but it is easy to understand why the mistake was made when you factor in the uneasiness caused by Castro.

Supposedly, if the Europeans would invade America and actually win (don't elaborate how, because I'm aware we wouldn't), because we felt that the American people were misinformed by Bush, would it be the right thing? Who is to judge wich person is the new Hitler and who isn't? The United States of America?

If Bush somehow took over as a dictator, and started mass murdering us, the citizens for opposing him, or for racial reasons, then I would hope Europe would help us out.

If you're referring to the Cuba crisis, the Soviets' actions back then were completely justified.

As our actions were justified in protecting ourselves from a Soviet first strike threat.

Namely because the US had multiple allies near the Soviet union, namely Turkey, South Korea, Japan and more. The US even had nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey. Note that the SU retreated their nukes from Cuba under the condition that the US would do the same thing with Turkey, and that the government only announced that little detail ten years later, while everybody believed this was a huge victory for the US while in fact it was a strategical loss. Meanwhile you're qualifying other nations people as misinformed.

The missiles in Turkey were obsolete. The US had planned to remove them beforehand anyway.

The deal with Russia was not an attempt to fool the American people. We could not show the world that we had made a deal under threat. This would only encourage other hostile nations.

And we have to take your word for it?

No, take Colin Powell's word for it.

Excuse me? Reagan is famous for how he called the Soviet Union "an evil empire", and half a dozen other things, wich didn't really improve foreign relations.

He is also famous for negotiating arms reduction deals with Gorbechav. It just shows that when dialogue truly opened up, we found that we had more in common than we thought.

[Miles]

Miles,

Let's try get some conclussions. I think it's time to do it, since in many aspects we've already described our positions with detail.

I think we agree in the following subjects :

1. Condem the US policy and conspiration against Chilean democracy in 1973.

Not the conspiracy against the Chilean government, that act, while probably wrong, is understandable when taken into context of the cold war.

I condemn the fact that we stood by while HR violations took place by Pinochet. We should not have ignored or possibly encouraged our responsibility to correct our mistake. This was immoral, and this I condemn.

2. Condem the US support to Chilean dictatorial government.

After it was known what tactics were being used.

3. Condem the violations of the HR violations in Chile during 17 years.

Absolutely.

4. Action against Soviets expanssion was needed, but US used TERROR to do that.

Unless we aided in the assasinations, then I don't see our use of terror.

We don't agree in :

1. I say the the CIA also has a great blame in the HR violations in Chile, in the execution and planning stage. You say the CIA had nothing to do with the HR violations, that it was 100% responsability of Pinochet.

No, by standing by and doing nothing when we knew what was happening, we have a large level of responsibility. But we don't agree that the US shoulders MOST of the blame. I still think that the people who planned and carried out those plots shoulder most of the blame.

2. I say the US is still being hypocrite for not providing all the information they have about the plot and the HR violations. You say the US don't have to.

I suppose I will change position on this a little. If there is direct evidence in the CIA documents, that the agents actively participated in the planning, or execution of these acts, then they need to be brought forth, and the responsible brought to justice. But, if this evidence is not present, then the names of any agents in the documents should not be put out for the sake of those people's safety.

3. Freedom and Democracy for me are values that cannot change it's means of action over time, you think the opposite.

Yes, in some cases they need to be put on the "back burner" if a greater and more urgent need arises. For example, if the US is invaded, then I would support the institution of the draft. That is taking away people's freedoms, but sometimes that is necessary, or if a democratically elected government is commiting atrocities like genocide, then actions should be taken to overthrow that government. We don't live in a world where you can set concrete rules because politics are everchanging.

Now, my final remarks about your last post.

This is actually a step forward in our debate.

You recognized that the possibility exists. Then it's the justice in a court of law should determine if those US and Chilean citizens are guilty or not. To acomplish that US must give the names of the CIA agents that participated in the conspiration against Chile, those CIA agents are still alive. Let Justice do their work. Do you agree with that ?

No, they must submit names of CIA agents that participated in the atrocities done AFTER Pinochet was in power. This I would support.

There is a BIG difference, between a that regime and a government.

I condem the Chilean dictatorial regime, that was not a government, that was not the Chilean people's will.

Nor was it the will of the American people to overlook atrocities. I condemn our government's actions at that time for doing so.

Then let's allow a fair trial process and the Justice will decide if that possibility is true or not. If there were CIA agents involved in HR violations, they must be in jale, (already in Chile 2 ministers of Pinochet are in jale right now). The issue is not if you see or not evidence, it's the justice in a court of law who should decide. In order to correct the BIG f*cking mistake US did to Chile, US should provide ALL the information and names they have, that would restore some peace of those families that suffered so much and still do. Justice, just justice.

If it is evident that the CIA agents were involved in in the HR violations by the documentation, then their names should be given.

I don't think so. I believe that there is big mistake about to happen again.

But you would have us ignore human rights violations now?

I don't have to prove it myself. Those agents involved in the events of 1973 must prove their innocence in a court of law, because they had participation on it. However, the US in a hypocrit attitude says that it's not something to be proud of but at the same time they protect people who are probably guilty.

actually due process states that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies on the prosecuters. Jailing or executing the "probably guilty" is a very dangerous and foolish notion. The guilt of these CIA agents needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is justice.

I still understanding that based on your view, Bin Laden is not guilty because he didn't executed himself the crashes against the TT.

No, Bin laden was directly involved in the planning, and funding for the terrorist acts. No one can prove that the CIA was involved in the actions of Pinochet after the Coup.

You have to understand that months before Pinochet left the power, almost all the evidence that was in Chile was destroyed. The other source of information is the US, but they do not provide all they have.

That is unfortunate then. The US will provide what is relevant, but will protect it's people from bogus charges. Again, if the documents do not directly link the agents to the HR violations, then the US is not obligated to submit them in the interest of national security, and the interest of the safety of the falsely accused. Some Chilean nut may decide to take matters in his own hands.

We certanly don't need to agree on everything.

agreed, but it is interesting to debate with someone of intelligence and a point of view I have never heard before. I appreciate this discussion as it has enlightened me on an issue that I was unaware of.

[zamboe]

Miles, could you plz fix the quotes and colors of your last post it's kinda difficult to know what you wrote. ;)

[emprworm]

this is some debate here!!!! very impressive on both sides. miles and zam are both skilled debators. keep it up guys!! I favor miles position though....hey no offense zam (i'm a US kind of guy, whatcha expect? he he), but u are bringing up some really good points.

[zamboe]

1. Condem the US policy and conspiration against Chilean democracy in 1973.

Not the conspiracy against the Chilean government, that act, while probably wrong, is understandable when taken into context of the cold war.

I condemn the fact that we stood by while HR violations took place by Pinochet. We should not have ignored or possibly encouraged our responsibility to correct our mistake. This was immoral, and this I condemn.

If we cannot agree in #1 I see not importance on the rest of the subjects.

You seem to still accept that the enviroment of the cold war justified any action against potential future communist threads. It would apply to your position the very well know communist phrase "The objective justify the means", such a way to defend democracy and capitalism.

I'll re-write #2.

2. Condem the US support to Chilean dictatorial government after it was know what tactics were used.

3. Condem the violations of the HR violations in Chile during 17 years.

4. Action against Soviets expanssion was needed, but US used TERROR to do that.

Unless we aided in the assasinations, then I don't see our use of terror.

That's exactly my position, I am sure US aided on that, therefore we don't agree on #4

I suppose I will change position on this a little. If there is direct evidence in the CIA documents, that the agents actively participated in the planning, or execution of these acts, then they need to be brought forth, and the responsible brought to justice. But, if this evidence is not present, then the names of any agents in the documents should not be put out for the sake of those people's safety.

The evidence is in CIA hands, they have the reports they prepared for 17 years.

The evidence/reports is against the CIA itself, how would you expect they would give the evidence to public opinion, if it goes against it's own benefit, they obviously don't want any bad propaganda for them and for themself. Expecting that CIA would release information for their own bad is like asking oranges to an apple tree. It will never happen and those people with responsability will never be put in a court of law.

If it is evident that the CIA agents were involved in in the HR violations by the documentation, then their names should be given.

They posses the evidence.

actually due process states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed. They are innocent, but it doesn't mean they cant be prosecuted. Let the HR organization prove their position by bringing those people to the justice.

No, Bin laden was directly involved in the planning, and funding for the terrorist acts. No one can prove that the CIA was involved in the actions of Pinochet after the Coup.

Because the CIA itself have the proof. They can prove it, otherwise how do you explain that many pages of the reporst were erased, what do they have to hide ?.

That is unfortunate then. The US will provide what is relevant, but will protect it's people from bogus charges. Again, if the documents do not directly link the agents to the HR violations, then the US is not obligated to submit them in the interest of national security, and the interest of the safety of the falsely accused. Some Chilean nut may decide to take matters in his own hands.

Then in your view, bogus charges and the possibility of some crazy chilean is more important than justice for those families that are still suffering those atrocities.

So far I've exposed all important things I have to say about this matter (Chile 1973). We have starting to repeat the same arguments. No need to do that, we agree on a just a few thing but disagree on the most important ones.

I've never expected that you change your mind, or so, I won't change mine also, however I am now more certain and sure of several points and as a plus I know your opinion, which in the best case gives me a different view, nothing else.

Thanks for the debate.

[Miles]

If we cannot agree in #1 I see not importance on the rest of the subjects.

You seem to still accept that the enviroment of the cold war justified any action against potential future communist threads. It would apply to your position the very well know communist phrase "The objective justify the means", such a way to defend democracy and capitalism.

I do not accetpt "any" action to have been justified. But, I think that taking measures to overthrow hostile governments(remember that would have been the belief at the time, through hindsight we can see the mistake) that pose an imminent threat to our citizen's lives is not unjustifiable. I would have also supported a Saudi led coup against Saddam Hussein. Sometimes these actions are necessary.

That's exactly my position, I am sure US aided on that, therefore we don't agree on #4

And your position is based on assumptions fueled by your hatred for the US, nothing more.

The evidence is in CIA hands, they have the reports they prepared for 17 years.

The evidence/reports is against the CIA itself, how would you expect they would give the evidence to public opinion, if it goes against it's own benefit, they obviously don't want any bad propaganda for them and for themself. Expecting that CIA would release information for their own bad is like asking oranges to an apple tree. It will never happen and those people with responsability will never be put in a court of law.

Note: I said SHOULD be brought forth, not that they will be brought forth. If the evidence condemns the CIA, then I don't see it coming forth either. That's unfortunate.

But you would not believe it if it came forth and proved that we did not participate, you would accuse them of tampering, so it is really pointless anyway. So the issue will probably never be totally resolved.

They posses the evidence.

You assume.

Indeed. They are innocent, but it doesn't mean they cant be prosecuted. Let the HR organization prove their position by bringing those people to the justice.

In the arrainment period, evidence must be brought forth in order for a judge to decide if the case warrants trial. There is no such evidence. It is my opinion that the documentation should be handed to a neutral judge and scrutinized there. But, I don't see this likely happening.

No, Bin laden was directly involved in the planning, and funding for the terrorist acts. No one can prove that the CIA was involved in the actions of Pinochet after the Coup.

Because the CIA itself have the proof. They can prove it, otherwise how do you explain that many pages of the reporst were erased, what do they have to hide ?.

Again, you assume they have proof. That is your mistake. You have judged them guilty based on nothing. To you, the trial is already over.

Then in your view, bogus charges and the possibility of some crazy chilean is more important than justice for those families that are still suffering those atrocities.

Bringing forth bogus charges and having a mock trial will not ease their suffering. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So far I've exposed all important things I have to say about this matter (Chile 1973). We have starting to repeat the same arguments. No need to do that, we agree on a just a few thing but disagree on the most important ones.

I've never expected that you change your mind, or so, I won't change mine also, however I am now more certain and sure of several points and as a plus I know your opinion, which in the best case gives me a different view, nothing else.

Thanks for the debate.

Your mind will not be changed, as your hatred for the US will make you see what you want to see. I have conceded the possibility of CIA involvement, but refuse to pass judgement without adequate evidence. The CIA documents talk of the involvement of the US in the Chilean coup, nothing more. Yet, you want to stretch that to involve Pinochet's actions to suppress opposition. Names of that involvement in the coup are irrelevant, so they should not be brought forth, however, if the CIA has evidence that they participated in the atrocities after that, then that evidence should be released. We do both agree that it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen, so I guess your hatred will burn on.