Libyan leader Gaddafi files motion to partition Switzerland at UN

[Siege]

Miglia, whom do you think you are kidding?
Your name alone tells me that you you belong to the italian nobility.
If that name is anyhting close to your real name.

So, here is the question:

1- Are you one of those naive italian nobility that can't tell right from left?

2- Or are you one of those naive italians that pretend to be nobility and can't tell right from left?

[Siege]

Either way your military sucks.

[Pat]

 

[Siege]

What are you laughing about?

You suck!!!1111

[Siege]

Oh, maybe you thought I would nt recognize your name.

WRONG!!!Q!!!11111

[Tonitrus]

You guys are totally missing the point.

That in order to hold with tradition, the only country in Europe that should be partitioned is Poland?

[Pat]

I'm Swedish, by the way, as apparent from the try to change the subject to Swedish ore exports to Nazi germany when they had no arguments in the matter of Chile.

(You are right, however, that my name is Italian-influenced, though I don't know where you get the nobility part from)

[The Minsky Moment]

Miglia? That sounds italian.

Yes just like Siege sounds French. 

[Berkut]

I have asked you to respond to a written source, which is no article of faith and which is more than enough to explain my position. You are under no obligation to do so, but I don't see why you would not, unless, of course, your position is based on faith and not evidence.

A written source for what?

You provided a written source that shows that the US supported the coup against Allende - but that was never disputed, so it isn't that interesting.

You followed it up with the claim that there was no difference between the US supporting the coup, and the US engaging in the coup itself, which is a rather large pill to swallow.

So it seems pretty reasonable to ask what level of "support and financial assistance" is adequate to remove said distinction with a difference. Apparently, providing another nation with the necessary materials needed to wage war, for example, does not reach the bar.

So what does? Apparently providing funds in some amount does, and Ape claims that the US even commenting on Venezuela is pretty much the same as us trying to overthrow Chavez. You guys seems to be all over the place on this. It is almost like the answer is "the level of support necessary is always exactly equal to whatever level of support, tangible or otherwise, the US provides to anyone we can get our little Euro hearts all emoraged over".

Perhaps that is not the case, and there really is some objective measure you are using - care to share it with the rest of us?

[Berkut]

I'm Swedish, by the way, as apparent from the try to change the subject to Swedish ore exports to Nazi germany when they had no arguments in the matter of Chile.

Lol, that is awesome, and so very appropriate. Got lucky on that one, I did.

Pretty funny listening to a Swede lecture anyone about not supporting democracy.

[Viking]

[he matches it with made-up "facts" about Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil industry (which has, of course, been nationalized for thirty-plus years)

That's a common error although Chavez has nationalized other industrial sectors and of course he also broke contracts with a number of the private oil cos operating in the country.  The FT ran an article today about the impact of his "reforms" on the coffee industry, which was once a significant export earner.  Price controls and interventions basically wiped out what remained of the industry and allegedly drove the remaining roasters to smuggle their product out of the country to avoid the price control.  In response, Chavez seized the roasters last month, and it is now estimated that under present production trends, venezuela will soon become a net coffee importer.

The same article notes that Venezuela, which not long ago was roughly self-sufficient in food production, now relies on imports for 50% of its food needs.  And with price controls and rampant inflation hitting farmers, this problem is likely to get worse before it gets better.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa1bef56-97d6-11de-8d3d-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

[The Minsky Moment]

I have asked you to respond to a written source, which is no article of faith and which is more than enough to explain my position.

Have you actually read it?

First it recounts CIA involvement in a plot to kidnap Gen Schneider.  The cables make it clear that the plan is being carried out by a set of officers, with the CIA's primary role the provision of tear gas.  The kidnapping plot fails.  However, another set of officers under Viaux, who Hitchens concedes the CIA did not trust and specifically directed to stand down, carried out their own separate assassination plot to kill Schneider.  Hitchens tries to argue otherwise, but the very cables he relies on plainly say otherwise, and he cites no primary evidence to the contrary, just second-hand hearsay. 

Of course, the Schneider assassination happened in 1970.  Allende wasn't even President at that point and the coup didn't happen until more than 3 years later, so the relevance of this whole account is unclear to begin with.

With respect to the Allende coup proper, Hitchens begins by saying "There is no particular need to rehearse the continuing role of the Nixon-Kissinger administration [sic!] in the later economic and political subversion of the Allende government, and in the creation of favorable conditions for the military coup." Sure Chris - there is no particular need - unless of course you want to convince an objective reader that that "role" was significant. But Hitchens has to make this dodge, because as it turns out, despite obtaining access to significant quantities of classified CIA cables and documents, he cites no evidence tying the CIA to the coup!

this is not an area I have carefully researched in the past, and prior to reading this my kind of lazy assumption was always that the CIA had played a significant facilitative role in the 73 coup, albeit not being the primary architect and engineer.  This book extract, far from convincing otherwise, actually has led me to believe that the CIA role was even *less* than I had previously assumed.

[KRonn]

[he matches it with made-up "facts" about Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil industry (which has, of course, been nationalized for thirty-plus years)

That's a common error although Chavez has nationalized other industrial sectors and of course he also broke contracts with a number of the private oil cos operating in the country.  The FT ran an article today about the impact of his "reforms" on the coffee industry, which was once a significant export earner.  Price controls and interventions basically wiped out what remained of the industry and allegedly drove the remaining roasters to smuggle their product out of the country to avoid the price control.  In response, Chavez seized the roasters last month, and it is now estimated that under present production trends, venezuela will soon become a net coffee importer.

The same article notes that Venezuela, which not long ago was roughly self-sufficient in food production, now relies on imports for 50% of its food needs.  And with price controls and rampant inflation hitting farmers, this problem is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Wow, it keeps getting worse. Added with his restricting media rights, and a lot more outside of the economy. The beat goes on, and on, and people wonder why many of us hold Chavez in low esteem? The question should be "Why does anyone find him so acceptable"? Is it just because  he says the right words against the evil *fill in the blank*, while doing the worst in his actions?

[grumbler]

I refer you both to chapter V of the fine book by Christopher Hitchens, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", which by and large lets recently de-classified documents speak for themselves as regards US involvement in the overthrow of the government of this "dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica".

No can do.  Broken link.  Check to see if the CIA is sabotaging you.

And as for FFS learn real history not made up crap, the US didn't overthrow Allende - it only provided support and funding! - well that might just be the best example of a distinction without a difference I've ever seen.  

You need to get out more, if that is true.  Also, getting some help with reading comprehension might allow you to understand distinctions that are now beyond your mental grasp.

[grumbler]

this is not an area I have carefully researched in the past, and prior to reading this my kind of lazy assumption was always that the CIA had played a significant facilitative role in the 73 coup, albeit not being the primary architect and engineer.  This book extract, far from convincing otherwise, actually has led me to believe that the CIA role was even *less* than I had previously assumed.

This has been my experience, as well.  It is generally pretty safe to say that those who argue that "the CIA overthrew Allende" are either ignorant or willfully ignorant, because the facts don't support the assertion.

Pretty much identical to the case of Mossadiq, by the way.  There, again, the CIA is commonly given credit for a successful coup that they themselves didn't cause and had little influence over.