Languish.org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210936/Now-Colonel-Gaddafi-wants-abolish-Switzerland-Dictator-files-bizarre-motion-U-N.html

QuoteNow Colonel Gaddafi wants to 'abolish' Switzerland: Dictator files bizarre motion with the U.N.

Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi is set to ask the United Nations to 'abolish' Switzerland and share the land among its neighbouring countries.

The eccentric dictator has filed a motion with the U.N. saying the Alpine state should be wiped off the map and split among France, Italy and Germany.

Gaddafi is set to present his bizarre plan when Libya takes over the year-long presidency of the U.N. general Assembly on September 15.

He first mentioned his idea at the G8 summit in Italy in July. 'Switzerland is a world mafia and not a state,' he said.

'It is formed of an Italian community that should return to Italy, another German community that should return to Germany, and a third French community that should return to France.'

The Swiss Foreign Ministry described it as a single-minded campaign against Swiss interests.

Swiss MP Christa Markwalder, told the Swiss TV news programme 10 vor 10 this week: 'We are concerned that Libya will attempt to use its year-long presidency of the U.N. General Assembly to damage Switzerland's reputation.'

Relations between Switzerland and Libya crumbled after Gaddafi's son Hannibal, 33, and his pregnant wife were arrested in Geneva a year ago accused of assaulting a hotel chamber maid.

Two days after the arrest the couple were freed on bail after the complaint against them was dropped, but Gaddafi still hit back by withdrawing five billion dollars from Swiss banks, closing Swiss businesses and arresting Swiss nationals in Libya.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice yesterday challenged the Libyan leader to behave himself during his upcoming first-ever U.N. visit.

Gaddafi is among the world leaders expected to attend the 192-nation U.N. General Assembly and possibly other high-level meetings in late September, including a U.S.-sponsored session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament to be held by the 15-nation Security Council and chaired by President Barack Obama.

Rice, speaking as the incoming president of the U.N. Security Council this month, cited broad U.S. anger over Libya's enthusiastic homecoming for Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber who was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds last month.

'It goes without saying that virtually every American has been offended by the reception accorded to Mr Megrahi in Libya upon his return from the U.K.,' said Rice.

Gaddafi, elected to head the African Union this year, has been on a multi-year quest to repair his international image.

But United States Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, said on Wednesday that the forthcoming UN meeting would be devoted solely to disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

She added: 'It would be irrelevant and misplaced for any head of state to talk about unrelated subjects.'

The Libyan strongman, who celebrated his 40th year as ruler of the oil-rich North African country  on Monday, has denounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

He is known for hours-long, rambling speeches, but Susan Rice said such rhetoric wouldn't be tolerated.

She said that most nations have assured her their leader's remarks will be brief.  'We expect no less from President Gaddafi should he come,' she added.

:lol:

Quote from: Syt on September 03, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Gaddafi is set to present his bizarre plan when Libya takes over the year-long presidency of the U.N. general Assembly on September 15.

:bleeding: And you guys wonder why we laugh at the UN.

Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 11:13:01 AM

Quote from: Syt on September 03, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Gaddafi is set to present his bizarre plan when Libya takes over the year-long presidency of the U.N. general Assembly on September 15.

:bleeding: And you guys wonder why we laugh at the UN.

Um... when is it Chavez's turn at the helm??    <_<

I am glad to see a world leader finally step in to combat the Swiss menace.

Gaddafi didn't behave like that when Bush was president.  I think we should amend the US Constitution and re-appoint Bush as president to deal with the Libyan threat.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
I am glad to see a world leader finally step in to combat the Swiss menace.

The Swiss and their chocolate are much to blame for world wide obesity!!   :mad:


;)

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
I am glad to see a world leader finally step in to combat the Swiss menace.

But he has no plans to deal with the Romansh, the most dangerous of Swiss.

Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 11:13:01 AM
:bleeding: And you guys wonder why we laugh at the UN.

Because it's universal?  :huh:

Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 12:08:28 PM
Because it's universal?  :huh:

Because it puts insane dictators in charge of things like international human rights?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 12:25:10 PM

Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 12:08:28 PM
Because it's universal?  :huh:

Because it puts insane dictators in charge of things like international human rights?

It's not about international human rights, it's about General Assembly.
UN is not supposed to be like NATO or EU. It's supposed to be a representation of international community and that's include international dictators. For God's sake, Joe Stalin was one of the people beside it.

Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 12:42:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 12:25:10 PM

Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 12:08:28 PM
Because it's universal?  :huh:

Because it puts insane dictators in charge of things like international human rights?

It's not about international human rights, it's about General Assembly.
UN is not supposed to be like NATO or EU. It's supposed to be a representation of international community and that's include international dictators. For God's sake, Joe Stalin was one of the people beside it.

Which would be all and good, except idiots and cowards keep assigning some sort of moral value to pronouncements from the UN.

Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 11:53:53 AM

Um... when is it Chavez's turn at the helm??    <_<

Better Chavez then Bush  <_<

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:10:58 PM

Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 11:53:53 AM

Um... when is it Chavez's turn at the helm??    <_<

Better Chavez then Bush  <_<

:huh:

Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 01:12:32 PM

:huh:

I honestly can't understand the hate Chavez gets in American media and from americans. Even though the European media is rather leftist, even our liberal (in the classical meaning) and conservative media paints Chavez not even close to how he is portraited in american media.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
I honestly can't understand the hate Chavez gets in American media and from americans. Even though the European media is rather leftist, even our liberal (in the classical meaning) and conservative media paints Chavez not even close to how he is portraited in american media.

You cannot understand why we hate populist caudillos who have been looting and devastating South America from the right and left for 200 years?

Maybe because we actually want Latin America to be successful?

Oh and there is the fact he supports drug militias and engages in aggressive saber waving...and preaches hatred for the United States.

Does supporting terrorism, looting his country, threatening war on his neighbors, and preaching hatred for foreign nations not register to you guys?

Naturally he is far preferable to Bushitler but so would a geneticaly engineered combination of Stalin and Mao possessed by Satan.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:17:13 PM

Quote from: KRonn on September 03, 2009, 01:12:32 PM

:huh:

I honestly can't understand the hate Chavez gets in American media and from americans. Even though the European media is rather leftist, even our liberal (in the classical meaning) and conservative media paints Chavez not even close to how he is portraited in american media.

A dictator wannabe, left wing demagogue, running rough shod over his country, trampling rights of people, media and business. And trying to whip up other nations in the region to be on the same page with his ideologies. That's what I see in him.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 01:19:42 PM


You cannot understand why we hate populist caudillos who have been looting and devastating South America from the right and left for 200 years?

Maybe because we actually want Latin America to be successful?

Successfull like Salvador Allende?

Or Chiquitas?

USA or it's citizens pointing fingers at any government of Latinamerica is rather sanctimonious. The only contries that have behaved worse towards the Latin American countries are Spain and Portugal, and that was 500 years ago.

did Qaddafi forget his swiss bank account number?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Successfull like Salvador Allende?

No, actually successful.

Quote from: Caliga on September 03, 2009, 11:13:01 AM

Quote from: Syt on September 03, 2009, 11:08:20 AM
Gaddafi is set to present his bizarre plan when Libya takes over the year-long presidency of the U.N. general Assembly on September 15.

:bleeding: And you guys wonder why we laugh at the UN.

I'm sure its credibility will increase when the Sudan and Red China share the Human Rights Commission chair again. 

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 01:36:18 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Successfull like Salvador Allende?

No, actually successful.

Sorry I could possibly have expressed myself better.

What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain. What might have happend to Chile had the CIA decided not to meddle where they weren't supposed to we will never know, but it could hardly have been worse.
So any attempts by the US government and media to paint Chavez as a left-wing populist demagouge sounds rather hollow.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:30:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 01:19:42 PM


You cannot understand why we hate populist caudillos who have been looting and devastating South America from the right and left for 200 years?

Maybe because we actually want Latin America to be successful?

Successfull like Salvador Allende?

Or Chiquitas?

USA or it's citizens pointing fingers at any government of Latinamerica is rather sanctimonious. The only contries that have behaved worse towards the Latin American countries are Spain and Portugal, and that was 500 years ago.

I don't think it's sanctimonious to have an opinion or voice a view, just because we haven't been perfect in our dealings over history. Still have to address and deal with the here and now, regardless of past errors.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Successfull like Salvador Allende?

Or Chiquitas?

USA or it's citizens pointing fingers at any government of Latinamerica is rather sanctimonious. The only contries that have behaved worse towards the Latin American countries are Spain and Portugal, and that was 500 years ago.

Oh I knew I would get the 'but the USA has done bad things in Latin America therefore how can YOU ever have an opinion on anything' nonsense.

We have also invested tons of money in and helped out Latin America also but as usual every thing we ever did wrong really happened and is important but everything we did good never happened and is a figment of our fucking imaginations.  Bullshit.

Anyway even if we are the Hitler of the hemisphere(tm) I still fail to see why I should be in favor of everything that goes on in Latin America.  What sort of ridiculous standard is that?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:42:12 PM
Sorry I could possibly have expressed myself better.

What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain. What might have happend to Chile had the CIA decided not to meddle where they weren't supposed to we will never know, but it could hardly have been worse.
So any attempts by the US government and media to paint Chavez as a left-wing populist demagouge sounds rather hollow.

Did Chile actually go down the drain?  Isn't it one of the most successful countries in South America?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 01:51:04 PM
Oh I knew I would get the 'but the USA has done bad things in Latin America therefore how can YOU ever have an opinion on anything' nonsense.

I'm actually disappointed in Ape. I never had him pegged as a Scandi Martim Silva.  :cry:

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:42:12 PM
What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain. What might have happend to Chile had the CIA decided not to meddle where they weren't supposed to we will never know, but it could hardly have been worse.
So any attempts by the US government and media to paint Chavez as a left-wing populist demagouge sounds rather hollow.

How do you know Allende wouldn't have been overthrown anyway?  Coups were not exactly super rare back then.  Who knows?

Anyway the US government isn't painting Chavez as anything you goofy Dane, he is perfectly capable of being a populist demagogue on his own.  He does a good job actually.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 01:51:48 PM

Did Chile actually go down the drain?  Isn't it one of the most successful countries in South America?

:blink:

Today after some 50 years, but ask a Chilean that question, please. And then tell him you are from the USA and ask him if it was worth it.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:57:59 PM
Today after some 50 years, but ask a Chilean that question, please. And then tell him you are from the USA and ask him if it was worth it.

50 years?  WTF?

That is rich of the Chileans to blame the whole thing on us, they had tons of people lined up ready to overthrow the dude we hardly had to do much more than be for it.  Typical South American victim mentality.  They bear a huge responsibility for it as well.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:42:12 PM
What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain.

Chile's per capita GDP is higher than Venezuela, even though Venezuela is literally sitting on an ocean of oil, whereas Chile's main resources other than copper are cod, plums and avocados.

Pinochet was an awful man who did terrible things, but it simply is not accurate to say the country went down the drain.

The tragedy of Chavez is that he took a country that had real prospects and a core of talented and skilled professionals and sabotaged it, looting the country to fund his political slush funds.  If an evil genius concoted a sinister plan to systematically destroy the underpinnings of the Venezuelan economy, he could not have done a more efficient job of it than Chavez has done.

At this very moment Venezuela is sitting on one of the most lucrative, unexploited oil field discoveries on the planet, in Carabobo.  They tried to launch a tender for the development rights in 2008, but had to postpone it last month because no one was prepared to put in serious bids.  The oil ministry has stated that they will get a deal done by the end of the year, but people in the industry have given statements off the record basically saying that even though the potential of the project is very lucrative and there are no technical barriers, the terms required under the "bolivarian" system are ridiculous, and no one trusts the government to keep to whatever contract it signs.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 01:36:18 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:30:58 PM
Successfull like Salvador Allende?

No, actually successful.

Sorry I could possibly have expressed myself better.

What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain. What might have happend to Chile had the CIA decided not to meddle where they weren't supposed to we will never know, but it could hardly have been worse.
So any attempts by the US government and media to paint Chavez as a left-wing populist demagouge sounds rather hollow.

:blink:

Are you kidding me?

Were you aware that Chile has the HIGHEST GDP per capita of all of South America?  Of course Chile could be worse - it could be like the rest of the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_American_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 01:51:48 PM

Did Chile actually go down the drain?  Isn't it one of the most successful countries in South America?

:blink:

Today after some 50 years, but ask a Chilean that question, please. And then tell him you are from the USA and ask him if it was worth it.

As with so many things, it depends on which Chilean you ask.  Some will say yes, some will say no.  :mellow:

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 01:51:04 PM

Oh I knew I would get the 'but the USA has done bad things in Latin America therefore how can YOU ever have an opinion on anything' nonsense.

We have also invested tons of money in and helped out Latin America also but as usual every thing we ever did wrong really happened and is important but everything we did good never happened and is a figment of our fucking imaginations.  Bullshit.

You honestly belive that investing money (even if it is a lot) outweights the fact that US sponsered governments in Latin-Aermica have systimatically physically eliminated left-wing opposition and overthrown democratically elected governments and replaced them with military juntas?

Quote from: Valmy
How do you know Allende wouldn't have been overthrown anyway?  Coups were not exactly super rare back then.  Who knows?

We don't, but meddling of the US government made it a certainity.

Quote from: Valmy
Anyway the US government isn't painting Chavez as anything you goofy Dane, he is perfectly capable of being a populist demagogue on his own.  He does a good job actually.

I'm not a Dane  :cool:
So the US government did not call Chavez a "negative force" in the region and tried isolate Venezuela from it's neighbors diplomatically and economically?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 02:05:29 PM
The tragedy of Chavez is that he took a country that had real prospects and a core of talented and skilled professionals and sabotaged it, looting the country to fund his political slush funds.  If an evil genius concoted a sinister plan to systematically destroy the underpinnings of the Venezuelan economy, he could not have done a more efficient job of it than Chavez has done.

Hush man, we are not allowed to point out the obvious since the CIA was involved in a coup 35 years ago.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 01:51:48 PM

Did Chile actually go down the drain?  Isn't it one of the most successful countries in South America?

:blink:

Today after some 50 years, but ask a Chilean that question, please. And then tell him you are from the USA and ask him if it was worth it.

Why is it successful today?  Could it be because socialism was interrupted before the damage it did became permanent?  I'm sure Allende was a swell guy, and Pinochet was an evil guy, but it takes a complete divorce from reality to think that Allende was leading his country in the right direction.  The economy was near collapse when he was offed.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:10:01 PM
You honestly belive that investing money (even if it is a lot) outweights the fact that US sponsered governments in Latin-Aermica have systimatically physically eliminated left-wing opposition and overthrown democratically elected governments and replaced them with military juntas?

Systematically?  Don't make me laugh.

QuoteSo the US government did not call Chavez a "negative force" in the region and tried isolate Venezuela from it's neighbors diplomatically and economically?

Considering we are still refining Venezuela's oil and have not asked that they be punished in anyway internationally I have to wonder what sort of crack you are snorting.

You implied there was some sort of propaganda campaign to smear Chavez as a populist left wing demogogue which is ridiculous as he self-evidently is.

QuoteI'm not a Dane

Oh right. :blush:

Goofy Swede.  Sorry.  Hey weren't you the guys who got mad that he was giving your weapons to militias?  OH NO SWEDEN IS UNFAIRLY GOING AFTER THE POOR INNOCENT CHAVEZ!!111  Can you explain Sweden's propaganda campaign to paint Chavez as somebody who supplies militias to destabilize it's neighbors? :P

The only greater gift the US could give to our Latin American brothers would be to pop a bullet into Chavez's skull and letting the Venezuelan people seize their own destiny.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 02:05:29 PM


Chile's per capita GDP is higher than Venezuela, even though Venezuela is literally sitting on an ocean of oil, whereas Chile's main resources other than copper are cod, plums and avocados.

Pinochet was an awful man who did terrible things, but it simply is not accurate to say the country went down the drain.

GDP doesn't give the full picture, you know that. What is the income distribution of Chile by the why? Or it's unemployment? And when did Chile actually get out of the gutter?

Since we're at this game and on the topic.


What about what Sweden did to the Baltic states and Finland? You know these areas are still struggling and backwards because of Swedish imperial dominination , don't you?

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 02:10:56 PM

Why is it successful today?  Could it be because socialism was interrupted before the damage it did became permanent?  I'm sure Allende was a swell guy, and Pinochet was an evil guy, but it takes a complete divorce from reality to think that Allende was leading his country in the right direction.  The economy was near collapse when he was offed.

Be that as it may, but it deprived the Chilean people the chance to decide for themselves about their future. Instead it was dictated from Washington with a gun.

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:22:55 PM
Since we're at this game and on the topic.


What about what Sweden did to the Baltic states and Finland? You know these areas are still struggling and backwards because of Swedish imperial dominination , don't you?

Sorry Jaron  :hug: go troll someone that actually cares

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:23:33 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 02:10:56 PM

Why is it successful today?  Could it be because socialism was interrupted before the damage it did became permanent?  I'm sure Allende was a swell guy, and Pinochet was an evil guy, but it takes a complete divorce from reality to think that Allende was leading his country in the right direction.  The economy was near collapse when he was offed.

Be that as it may, but it deprived the Chilean people the chance to decide for themselves about their future. Instead it was dictated from Washington with a gun.

Are you seriously suggesting that without the US = no coup? You're assuming quite a bit, aren't you?

Venezuela's poverty rate is much higher than Chile, even by the government statistics.  Chile's rate is under 20, while Venezuela's rate varies according to source from 25 to over 40%.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:23:33 PM
Be that as it may, but it deprived the Chilean people the chance to decide for themselves about their future. Instead it was dictated from Washington with a gun.

Yes, of course, but that's a different argument.  However, the argument that Pinochet's coup turned Chile into a basket case is a non-starter.  It actually prevented Chile from descending into a basket case status, whether Chileans appreciate that or not.  Life would be easy if moral choices always led to best results, and immoral choices led to worst results, but alas it's not always the case.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:23:33 PM
Be that as it may, but it deprived the Chilean people the chance to decide for themselves about their future. Instead it was dictated from Washington with a gun.

That is ridiculously melodramatic.  Who carried out the coup?  Who ran the dictatorship?  We simply went along with it because of the context of the Cold War.

It was a shitty thing to do and I would be against us doing anything like it in the future but please let's not get carried away.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 02:28:41 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:23:33 PM
Be that as it may, but it deprived the Chilean people the chance to decide for themselves about their future. Instead it was dictated from Washington with a gun.

That is ridiculously melodramatic.  Who carried out the coup?  Who ran the dictatorship?  We simply went along with it because of the context of the Cold War.

If the Chilean people could have picked, they'd have picked Pinochet. ;)

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 02:28:28 PM

Yes, of course, but that's a different argument.  However, the argument that Pinochet's coup turned Chile into a basket case is a non-starter.  It actually prevented Chile from descending into a basket case status, whether Chileans appreciate that or not.

You don't know that, just as I don't know if a coup was inevitable, CIA sponsored or not. Is it impossible that Allende would try and transform Chilean economy into a mixed socialdemocratic one? We don't know. Neither do we know if Allende would have been voted out of office in the next election had he failed and a more marcet-economic friendly government taken his place. Now that was denied due to the action of the CIA.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 02:28:28 PM
Life would be easy if moral choices always led to best results, and immoral choices led to worst results, but alas it's not always the case.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. You can't justify several thousand people executed with 'Well rich Chileans got it better now then they might have had'

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Sorry, but that is bullshit. You can't justify several thousand people executed with 'Well rich Chileans got it better now then they might have had'

Isn't that what the American Revolution is founded on?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 02:28:41 PM


That is ridiculously melodramatic.  Who carried out the coup?  Who ran the dictatorship?  We simply went along with it because of the context of the Cold War.

It was a shitty thing to do and I would be against us doing anything like it in the future but please let's not get carried away.

The problem is that the rhetoric (some might say propaganda) from the US government and US media is very similar against Chavez as it was against Allende. It could all very well simply be a case of 'Cry wolf', and how would we know that this time there is actually a wolf?

Not to mention that there are striking similarites between Allende's Chile and Chavez' Venezuela such as that boh wished to nationalise natural resources (copper in Chile and Oil in Venezuela) owned by major corporations based in the USA.

I'm going to enjoy some Euro tears when the US engineers Chavez's downfall.


Fact is you don't go up against the great superpower of the world and not expect consequences.


Chavez has ruined Venezuela and continues to taunt us and make nice to our enemies and soon the hammer shall strike him down with such force as to make him beg for death.

Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2009, 02:52:22 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Sorry, but that is bullshit. You can't justify several thousand people executed with 'Well rich Chileans got it better now then they might have had'

Isn't that what the American Revolution is founded on?

I doubt that the 'founding fathers' set out with the established goal of making it better for rich Chileans   :P

I thought Qaddafi had a good point.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 02:57:05 PM
I thought Qaddafi had a good point.

Hitler would have probably partitioned it eventually if he won the war.

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
I'm going to enjoy some Euro tears when the US engineers Chavez's downfall.


Fact is you don't go up against the great superpower of the world and not expect consequences.


Chavez has ruined Venezuela and continues to taunt us and make nice to our enemies and soon the hammer shall strike him down with such force as to make him beg for death.

Like Cuba or North Vietnam?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:02:27 PM

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
I'm going to enjoy some Euro tears when the US engineers Chavez's downfall.


Fact is you don't go up against the great superpower of the world and not expect consequences.


Chavez has ruined Venezuela and continues to taunt us and make nice to our enemies and soon the hammer shall strike him down with such force as to make him beg for death.

Like Cuba or North Vietnam?

No, like Afghanistan or Iraq. :)

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Is it impossible that Allende would try and transform Chilean economy into a mixed socialdemocratic one? We don't know.

Of course we don't know, but we can make an educated guess, and that is "not bloody likely".  His track record bore no hint of even basic economic competency.  He repeated the mistakes of countless socialists and communists before him, and was well on his way of obliterating his country's economy, in just three years' worth of work.  You've picked the wrong horse in this debate.

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 03:03:52 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:02:27 PM

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
I'm going to enjoy some Euro tears when the US engineers Chavez's downfall.


Fact is you don't go up against the great superpower of the world and not expect consequences.


Chavez has ruined Venezuela and continues to taunt us and make nice to our enemies and soon the hammer shall strike him down with such force as to make him beg for death.

Like Cuba or North Vietnam?

No, like Afghanistan or Iraq. :)

Right  :lmfao:
One country devastated first by an almost decade long Soviet invasion and then by a longer civil war and another country supplied with 3rd rate equipment from the USSR, attritioned in a decade long war with it's larger neighbour, devastated in a three month aerial offensive and then besieged for another decade, and both still causing enough casulties that the american public is growing weary.


...

truly a great accomplishment  :lmfao:

I guess the Taliban or Saddam Hussein would have brought education and democracy to their countries if we'd given them a chance. Now we'll NEVER know!! :o

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:08:17 PM

Of course we don't know, but we can make an educated guess, and that is "not bloody likely".  His track record bore no hint of even basic economic competency.
He repeated the mistakes of countless socialists and communists before him, and was well on his way of obliterating his country's economy, in just three years' worth of work.   

Like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, truly shining examples of failed socialistic policies ....  try to remember that Socialism =/= communsism, And Allende was not a communist, he was a socialist.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:08:17 PMYou've picked the wrong horse in this debate.

FFS the point I'm trying to make is that the CIA and the US government removed the Chilean peoples right for self-determination, and that after the coup Chiles economy went down the drain. If it was a cause of Allendes policys or because of the selling of public owned companies after the coup I do not know and is irrelevant.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anarkismo.net%2Fattachments%2Fdec2006%2Farticles68560_pinochet_junta.jpg&hash=a0c475767c254534467dc9edc02fbad1a2cba555)

:wub:

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 03:12:11 PM
I guess the Taliban or Saddam Hussein would have brought education and democracy to their countries if we'd given them a chance. Now we'll NEVER know!! :o

epic fail

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:25:54 PM
Like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, truly shining examples of failed socialistic policies ....  try to remember that Socialism =/= communsism, And Allende was not a communist, he was a socialist.

Those countries are mixed capitalist countries with strong social safety net.

QuoteFFS the point I'm trying to make is that the CIA and the US government removed the Chilean peoples right for self-determination, and that after the coup Chiles economy went down the drain. If it was a cause of Allendes policys or because of the selling of public owned companies after the coup I do not know and is irrelevant.

And the point I'm making is that this is a factually wrong interpretation.  Chile's economy took a huge dive before the coup, and in fact that dive is what primarily triggered the coup.  To make an argument that Chile's economy went down the drain after the coup, you have to be willing to ignore what actually happened, and instead make up facts to suit your ideology.  I think you're proving to be quite capable.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 03:12:11 PM
I guess the Taliban or Saddam Hussein would have brought education and democracy to their countries if we'd given them a chance. Now we'll NEVER know!! :o

epic fail

Yes, you are. ^_^ You'd save us all a lot of time and trouble if you just admitted you hate America and everything it does rather than trying to build pseudo arguments about why America is bad for stuff we did decades ago.

Especially since when it comes down to it, America gets its business handled and we have no regrets of crushing enemy, friend, or neutrals to make sure America stays on top.

That is especially true for the Cold War. We would have popped one to Canada if they'd cuddled up to Russia.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
The problem is that the rhetoric (some might say propaganda) from the US government and US media is very similar against Chavez as it was against Allende. It could all very well simply be a case of 'Cry wolf', and how would we know that this time there is actually a wolf?

You have got to be shitting me.  Are you now saying the US government controls the US Media?  WTF?

You might know because that was 35 years ago and the Cold War was going on?

Anyway I still don't see why this all means I cannot not embrace and celebrate a guy destroying a promising South American country and aggressively threatening his neighbors and so forth.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:25:54 PM
Like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, truly shining examples of failed socialistic policies ....  try to remember that Socialism =/= communsism, And Allende was not a communist, he was a socialist.

So is Lula da Silva and we love him.  Why?  Because he is a responsible leader and is doing good things in Brazil.  Try to remember that not all socialists are Skandis for fucksake.  Pinochet's regime is as much like The United States as Chavez's is to Denmarks.

Quote
FFS the point I'm trying to make is that the CIA and the US government removed the Chilean peoples right for self-determination, and that after the coup Chiles economy went down the drain. If it was a cause of Allendes policys or because of the selling of public owned companies after the coup I do not know and is irrelevant.

I thought the point you were making was that Chavez is not so bad and we are smearing his good name with our evil US propaganda?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:10:01 PM

You honestly belive that investing money (even if it is a lot) outweights the fact that US sponsered governments in Latin-Aermica have systimatically physically eliminated left-wing opposition and overthrown democratically elected governments and replaced them with military juntas?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

QuoteSo the US government did not call Chavez a "negative force" in the region and tried isolate Venezuela from it's neighbors diplomatically and economically?

I thought we "systemically physically eliminated" left wing opposition?

Are you saying that Chavez just isn't left wing enough, so we decided to limit ourselves to strong language?

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:31:29 PM

Those countries are mixed capitalist countries with strong social safety net.

Which is the very definition of social democratic contries, and socialdemocracy is socialism.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:31:29 PM
And the point I'm making is that this is a factually wrong interpretation.  Chile's economy took a huge dive before the coup, and in fact that dive is what primarily triggered the coup. 

And your interpretation omitts quite a bit as well, like that Chiles economy wasn't in the best of states when Allende came in control, it was quite horrible in fact. And no what triggerd the coup was the sponsorship of the CIA, the economic policies of Allende was what made it possible for the US government to take advantage of those dissatisfied with the policies, primarily the rich, the miltaries and the church.
If Allendes economic policies would have failed with such certainty as you are advocating, why remove him with a coup? He would have been voted out of office if what you are saying is correct.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:31:29 PM
you have to be willing to ignore what actually happened, and instead make up facts to suit your ideology.  I think you're proving to be quite capable.

And you are proving that for you the ends justify the means. Out of curiosty what do you think my ideology is?

Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

I really hope you're trolling here Berk, I reall, really do :unsure:

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

I tend to disagree.  Some means end up defeating their ends.   While apocryphal, the idea that "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:48:53 PM
Which is the very definition of social democratic contries, and socialdemocracy is socialism.

That's debatable, and beyond semantics, there is a big difference between Scandinavian socialism and South American socialism.

QuoteAnd your interpretation omitts quite a bit as well, like that Chiles economy wasn't in the best of states when Allende came in control, it was quite horrible in fact.

No, it wasn't in a good state.  It wasn't nearly as bad as when Allende was overthrown, though.  The reason it got worse was that the painfully predictable outcome of implementing naive socialist policies was materializing.

QuoteOut of curiosty what do you think my ideology is?

I think that your ideology is very sympathetic to socialism at least.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

But the phrse "the ends justify the means" doesn't talk about some situations.  Clearly i 99.999% of situations the ends justify the means, because boths the ends and the means are benign.

But where the phrase "the ends justify the means" has controversy is that the phrase is meant to refer to ALL situations.  That no matter how vile or despicable the means, if the result is positive then it is justified.

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:58:03 PM

I think that your ideology is very sympathetic to socialism at least.

Sorry then you have completely missunderstood me
I'm about as far right you can come on the Swedish politcal scale without being called a Neo-Nazi. In american terms I think it would be market-liberal.
What I am though, is strongly sympathetic towards peoples right for self-determination, something the US foreign policy seems through the 20th and 21st century not to really care about.

And no I do not hate USA or its citizens, I hate large parts of the US governments foreign policy during the late 20th and 21st century.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 04:09:08 PM
What I am though, is strongly sympathetic towards peoples right for self-determination, something the US foreign policy seems through the 20th and 21st century not to really care about.

I think you are picking and choosing.  You are ignoring every good thing we do and obsessing over every bad thing and conclude therefore that all we do is bad.

QuoteAnd no I do not hate USA or its citizens, I hate large parts of the US governments foreign policy during the late 20th and 21st century.

The late 20th century?  You hate us for intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, defending Kuwait?  What did we do so badly in the late 20th and early 21st century to hurt self determination?  Do you have one example?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 04:09:08 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 03, 2009, 03:58:03 PM

I think that your ideology is very sympathetic to socialism at least.

Sorry then you have completely missunderstood me
I'm about as far right you can come on the Swedish politcal scale without being called a Neo-Nazi. In american terms I think it would be market-liberal.
What I am though, is strongly sympathetic towards peoples right for self-determination, something the US foreign policy seems through the 20th and 21st century not to really care about.

And no I do not hate USA or its citizens, I hate large parts of the US governments foreign policy during the late 20th and 21st century.

Ok, then I confused which part of the ideology is at play here.  I guess your arguments are not driven by the need to whitewash socialism, but rather by the need to "blackwash" American foreign policy actions.  The fact that they helped overthrow the Democratic government is true, and is a mark against them.  However, you had to go further and pile on a charge that the coup wrecked the Chilean economy.  With that you went too far, and that's what most of the debate was about.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

Because it is less pithy than, "If you want an omelet you haffta break a few eggs."

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
The problem is that the rhetoric (some might say propaganda) from the US government and US media is very similar against Chavez as it was against Allende. It could all very well simply be a case of 'Cry wolf', and how would we know that this time there is actually a wolf?

Is it your position that there is some risk that the Obama administration is going to direct the CIA to back a coup in Venezuel?  Because that is serious tinfoil-hattery.

QuoteNot to mention that there are striking similarites between Allende's Chile and Chavez' Venezuela such as that boh wished to nationalise natural resources (copper in Chile and Oil in Venezuela) owned by major corporations based in the USA.

Chavez has nationalized huge swaths of the economy and the US has just sat on its hands.  Its not 1973 anymore, the Cold War is long over.  If third world countries want to commit economic suicide the US doesn't interfere anymore.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 04:15:16 PM
I think you are picking and choosing.  You are ignoring every good thing we do and obsessing over every bad thing and conclude therefore that all we do is bad.

Good things like?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 04:15:16 PM
The late 20th century?  You hate us for intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, defending Kuwait?  What the fuck did we do so badly in the late 20th and early 21st century to hurt self determination?  Do you have one example?

Nicaragua, Vietnam, Kuwait I couldn't care less about, Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Greece, Italy, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina to name a few

QuoteRelations between Switzerland and Libya crumbled after Gaddafi's son Hannibal, 33, and his pregnant wife were arrested in Geneva a year ago accused of assaulting a hotel chamber maid.

Gaddafi's son is called Hannibal?     :lmfao:


Did Gaddfi change his first name to Hamilcar? I wouldn't be surprised.

I thought we had already established in the old languish that there is no evidence that the CIA was behind the coup in Chile.  Indeed, similarly as in Honduras it was Allende who precipitated the crisis when he tried to set himself up as dictator leading to the revolt by the legislature, the judiciary, and the military against his rule.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 04:37:00 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 04:15:16 PM
I think you are picking and choosing.  You are ignoring every good thing we do and obsessing over every bad thing and conclude therefore that all we do is bad.

Good things like?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 04:15:16 PM
The late 20th century?  You hate us for intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, defending Kuwait?  What the fuck did we do so badly in the late 20th and early 21st century to hurt self determination?  Do you have one example?

Nicaragua, Vietnam, Kuwait I couldn't care less about, Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Greece, Italy, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina to name a few

Greece?

I think it's sanctimonious for Sweden to criticize any military aggression perpetrated by any country today considering their viking track record.  :mad:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 04:35:57 PM

Is it your position that there is some risk that the Obama administration is going to direct the CIA to back a coup in Venezuel?  Because that is serious tinfoil-hattery.

I don't think the current administration within the USA has been in office long enough for anyone to give a verdict to that, however I hope and I do believe that the current administration will refrain from such action, but you can never know for certain  :(

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 04:35:57 PM
If third world countries want to commit economic suicide the US doesn't interfere anymore.

So the former US government did not call for an economic and diplomatic isolation of Venezuela from it's neighbours? While maybe not as heavy handed as in -73 in Chile, it still did interfere.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 04:37:00 PM
Nicaragua

Iran-Contra?  The thing our Congress forbade doing but some fucks in the executive branch did anyway?  Putting that on the whole country is really unfair.  Now the shit we did in the EARLY 20th century in Nicaragua was pretty fucked up.

QuoteVietnam

We thought we were defending an allied state from attack.  Were you also mad we stepped in against North Korea?  But again that was all over by 1975 so how is that late 20th, early 21st century?

QuoteKuwait I couldn't care less about

Ok then.

QuoteChile

What have we done since 1974?

QuoteCuba

Yeah so we have an embargo but that is totally petty and driven by the need to please Cuban emigres.  It is stupid I grant you that but how does that help self determination?  I have a real hard time seeing a single party dictatorship like Cuba being a shining example of self-determination.

QuoteIraq

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party: a shining example of self-determination.  Are you shitting me?

QuoteGreece

Again we had nothing to do with the Military taking power we just supported them, for strategic reasons because of that Cold War thing.  Also this did not take place in the late 20th century or the 21st century.

QuoteItaly

Huh?

QuoteGuatemala

Hey now that was 1954.  You cannot possibly be this ignorant about dates.

QuoteBrazil, Argentina

??? huh?

Quoteto name a few

So far all I got is that you hate us for shit done during the Cold War, but hey it was dirty work and we were the poor bastards who had to combat the Soviets we certainly did not want to do all that cloak and dagger shit.  But I thought you were talking about the late 20th, early 21st century here?

Also you think Saddam Hussein was a great example of national self-determination, but come on now man!  It is not like we installed another dictator we are trying to set up a popular controlled government.

Seriously though, what do you have from the LATE 20th and 21st centuries?

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

I agree.

Like the bombing of Osirak.

Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
I think it's sanctimonious for Sweden to criticize any military aggression perpetrated by any country today considering their viking track record.  :mad:

You're right. They should be apologizing for Russia.

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 04:55:52 PM
Greece?

He is talking about the Military government in the 60s and 70s that we recognized.  Greece was strategically important.

I just love the US reaction btw:

QuoteU.S. Ambassador Susan Rice yesterday challenged the Libyan leader to behave himself during his upcoming first-ever U.N. visit

:D

Normally, when a country is calling for another country's partition, people are voicing their concern and protest. Here it's just  :rolleyes:

Hey Ape, I hope my next deployment after this one is to Venezuela.
That would be soooo fuckin COOL!!!!!!

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 11:58:21 AM
I am glad to see a world leader finally step in to combat the Swiss menace.

Charles the Bold shall finally be avenged. -_-

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 03, 2009, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
I think it's sanctimonious for Sweden to criticize any military aggression perpetrated by any country today considering their viking track record.  :mad:

You're right. They should be apologizing for Russia.

That would actually be funny. :D

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
I don't think the current administration within the USA has been in office long enough for anyone to give a verdict to that, however I hope and I do believe that the current administration will refrain from such action, but you can never know for certain  :(

The context of the Cold War means nothing to you?  Do you think we did all of that for fun?  Can you name ONE CIA coup since 1989?

QuoteSo the former US government did not call for an economic and diplomatic isolation of Venezuela from it's neighbours?

The standard now for interfering with self-determination is now not having any foreign policy at all?  Being completely mute on everything?

We have not lifted a finger to hurt Venezuela in any way, but it seems saying mean things is the same as a military coup.  How dare we not kiss the ass of a nation that proclaims its mission to disrupt our interests.

I mean are we still allowed to have a foreign policy Ape or does that offend you too much?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 03:39:56 PM
So is Lula da Silva and we love him. 

That's a bit of an overstatement. The media certainly beat the "blue eyes" statement to death.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2009, 05:11:24 PM
That's a bit of an overstatement. The media certainly beat the "blue eyes" statement to death.

Well I do and I speak for America.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:10:05 PM


The context of the Cold War means nothing to you?  Do you think we did all of that for fun?  Can you name ONE CIA coup since 1989?

Haiti.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:24:22 PM
Haiti.

Oh yeah I had forgotten about that one...almost 20 years ago now.  What was the deal there?

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:01:37 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 04:37:00 PM
Nicaragua

Iran-Contra?  The thing our Congress forbade doing but some fucks in the executive branch did anyway?  Putting that on the whole country is really unfair.  Now the shit we did in the EARLY 20th century in Nicaragua was pretty fucked up.

QuoteVietnam

We thought we were defending an allied state from attack.  Were you also mad we stepped in against North Korea?  But again that was all over by 1975 so how is that late 20th, early 21st century?

QuoteKuwait I couldn't care less about

Ok then.

QuoteChile

What have we done since 1974?

QuoteCuba

Yeah so we have an embargo but that is totally petty and driven by the need to please Cuban emigres.  It is stupid I grant you that but how does that help self determination?  I have a real hard time seeing a single party dictatorship like Cuba being a shining example of self-determination.

QuoteIraq

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party: a shining example of self-determination.  Are you shitting me?

QuoteGreece

Again we had nothing to do with the Military taking power we just supported them, for strategic reasons because of that Cold War thing.  Also this did not take place in the late 20th century or the 21st century.

QuoteItaly

Huh?

QuoteGuatemala

Hey now that was 1954.  You cannot possibly be this ignorant about dates.

QuoteBrazil, Argentina

??? huh?

Quoteto name a few

So far all I got is that you hate us for shit done during the Cold War, but hey it was dirty work and we were the poor bastards who had to combat the Soviets we certainly did not want to do all that cloak and dagger shit.  But I thought you were talking about the late 20th, early 21st century here?

Also you think Saddam Hussein was a great example of national self-determination, but come on now man!  It is not like we installed another dictator we are trying to set up a popular controlled government.

Seriously though, what do you have from the LATE 20th and 21st centuries?

In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:  just as the 19th century lasted from 1789 to 1914, now cold war and later is in a historical meaning late 20th century. What happened in 1950 has more in common with what happend in 1990 then what happend in 1940.

Contras, yes your executive branch fucked up, now which part of the US government decides foreign policy? It sure ain't the supreme court. And I'm not putting in on all of the USA, just the US governments foreign policy

Iraq, sorry I meant the Iran coup in -53 when the CIA worked with the British to overthrow the democratic government.

Vietnam, sorry, that is a major interferance that was fucked up badly.

Chile the CIA sponsored the coup in -73

Cuba, bay of pigs

Greece, aid to the Royalist Greeks in the Greek civil war 46-49

Italy, CIA sponsored assassination of union and communists leaders, supressing of commnist voters in the immidiate Italian post-war elections

Guatemala, yes -54 see definition of late 20th century above

Brazil -64 CIA aided coup against a democratic government

Argentina -76, CIA aided coup against a democratic government

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:26:26 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:24:22 PM
Haiti.

Oh yeah I had forgotten about that one...almost 20 years ago now.  What was the deal there?

Who the fuck knows?  It was quickly reversed.  Though I seriously doubt it would have mattered one way or another.  Country is a basket case.  Mostly due to the French.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM

In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:

The commie?  I'm surprised that he just didn't say the world ended in 1991.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM

In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:

The commie?  I'm surprised that he just didn't say the world ended in 1991.

Have you even read his book? If not then I think you ought to retract that statement, he severly critisized the Soviet Union.

Yay for making up our own definitions for centuries. :mellow:

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 05:36:25 PM
Yay for making up our own definitions for centuries. :mellow:

Not really, one of the definitions of the 20th century is the rise and fall of communism, the rise began in 1914, and it fell in 1991.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
So the former US government did not call for an economic and diplomatic isolation of Venezuela from it's neighbours?

Not that I am aware of.  More the other way around.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
So the former US government did not call for an economic and diplomatic isolation of Venezuela from it's neighbours?

Not that I am aware of.  More the other way around.

A sorry it was Chavez
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122)

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:34:59 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM

In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:

The commie?  I'm surprised that he just didn't say the world ended in 1991.

Have you even read his book? If not then I think you ought to retract that statement, he severly critisized the Soviet Union.

Yeah, for failing to take over the world liberating the proletariad.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:41:09 PM

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 05:36:25 PM
Yay for making up our own definitions for centuries. :mellow:

Not really, one of the definitions of the 20th century is the rise and fall of communism, the rise began in 1914, and it fell in 1991.

No duce.

20th Cnetury is frm 1900 to 1999.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM
In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:  just as the 19th century lasted from 1789 to 1914, now cold war and later is in a historical meaning late 20th century. What happened in 1950 has more in common with what happend in 1990 then what happend in 1940.

Hobsbwam hurt my feelings when he said such mean things about the Middle Classes in his book 'The Age of Capital'.

QuoteContras, yes your executive branch fucked up, now which part of the US government decides foreign policy? It sure ain't the supreme court. And I'm not putting in on all of the USA, just the US governments foreign policy

Um even we considered the actions by the government to be ILLEGAL.  That was not an official policy.

QuoteIraq, sorry I meant the Iran coup in -53 when the CIA worked with the British to overthrow the democratic government.

Yes I agree I disagree strongly with that particular policy.  The purpose though was to prevent the Soviet Union from taking control and considering they had occupied Iran several times recently that was a reasonable fear.  We didn't do it because we are mean or hate democratic governments.

QuoteVietnam, sorry, that is a major interferance that was fucked up badly.

Of course it was major interferance we were trying to support our guys against the guys the Soviets were supporting.

QuoteChile the CIA sponsored the coup in -73

Ok false.  The CIA helped a coup that was already going to happen and it happened to support our interests of making sure a potential Soviet ally did not set up shop in South America.  We did not "sponsor" a coup we have been around and around about this.

QuoteCuba, bay of pigs

Fidel Castro and his regime are a Democratic Government now?  Besides in that case Castro could have had everything he wanted if he had just not made the effort to be a Soviet ally.

QuoteGreece, aid to the Royalist Greeks in the Greek civil war 46-49

Ok what the fuck was wrong with that?  You wish the Greek Communist Party had taken control?  WTF?

QuoteItaly, CIA sponsored assassination of union and communists leaders, supressing of commnist voters in the immidiate Italian post-war elections

The Italian election of 1946 was effected by a US government organization that did not even exist until 1947? :tinfoil:

QuoteGuatemala, yes -54 see definition of late 20th century above

Yes another Cold War action that was a big mistake.  We still had alot of our WWII mentality going on in the early days.  But the purpose here was to prevent a Soviet ally in our hemisphere, not to destroy Democracy.

QuoteBrazil -64 CIA aided coup against a democratic government

Complete conjecture.  Nobody knows to what extent the CIA actually effected anything.

Besides the context is again the Cold War and it was going to happen anyway.

QuoteArgentina -76, CIA aided coup against a democratic government

Proof?  Kissinger simply liked it, but then Kissinger was an ass.

You have no proof that we had anything to with Brazil and Argentina and in any case our help was not significant either way.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 05:56:36 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:41:09 PM

Quote from: Jaron on September 03, 2009, 05:36:25 PM
Yay for making up our own definitions for centuries. :mellow:

Not really, one of the definitions of the 20th century is the rise and fall of communism, the rise began in 1914, and it fell in 1991.

No duce.

20th Cnetury is frm 1900 to 1999.

20th Century ran from 1901 to 2000. :nerd:

Anyway I get that you think we were bad guys during the Cold War.  I was sorta curious what we had done recently that made you think us doing a coup against Chavez was reasonably going to happen.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:45:19 PM
A sorry it was Chavez
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122)

Wow we said it was odd an elected President would rule by decree.  That is imperialist and evil of us.

Kissinger was an ass?

Come on!

What the hell did you expect in the middle of a Cold War?

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
What the hell did you expect in the middle of a Cold War?

Somebody who did not enjoy it that much?

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:34:59 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:29:08 PM

In a historical sense the 20th century lasted from 1914 to 1991 according to Hobsbwam :contract:

The commie?  I'm surprised that he just didn't say the world ended in 1991.

Have you even read his book? If not then I think you ought to retract that statement, he severly critisized the Soviet Union.

Why should I?  Clearly he doesn't even know what time period he's in.  Also, a Commie.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
Kissinger was an ass?

Come on!

What the hell did you expect in the middle of a Cold War?

He was doing it just to get laid.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
He was doing it just to get laid.

We he was very successful then by all accounts.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 06:03:36 PM

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
What the hell did you expect in the middle of a Cold War?

Somebody who did not enjoy it that much?

Ah, we are here today enjoying freedom because people back then took the Soviet threat seriously.

Realpolitiks, my friend.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:56:37 PM

Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2009, 02:52:22 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
Sorry, but that is bullshit. You can't justify several thousand people executed with 'Well rich Chileans got it better now then they might have had'

Isn't that what the American Revolution is founded on?

I doubt that the 'founding fathers' set out with the established goal of making it better for rich Chileans   :P

The founding fathers set out with the goal of murdering as many people as it took to make them rich and secure.  By supporting a coup in Chile, the US was exporting American values.

Besides, what difference does the ideology of the murderous thug in charge of a worthless country in South America?  Either way, thousands of people are going to get murdered by death squads.  The fact that Pinochet was hostile to the Soviets made him infinitely superior.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 06:17:03 PM

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
Kissinger was an ass?

Come on!

What the hell did you expect in the middle of a Cold War?

He was doing it just to get laid.

Probably. I don't put it pass him.

Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2009, 04:05:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

But the phrse "the ends justify the means" doesn't talk about some situations.  Clearly i 99.999% of situations the ends justify the means, because boths the ends and the means are benign.

But where the phrase "the ends justify the means" has controversy is that the phrase is meant to refer to ALL situations.  That no matter how vile or despicable the means, if the result is positive then it is justified.

That makes no sense though - of course the ends do not ALWAYS justify the means.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 06:36:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on September 03, 2009, 04:05:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 03:55:33 PM
Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

I've always wondered about that saying - it is so self-evidently true, that it doesn't make much sense as an accusation.

But the phrse "the ends justify the means" doesn't talk about some situations.  Clearly i 99.999% of situations the ends justify the means, because boths the ends and the means are benign.

But where the phrase "the ends justify the means" has controversy is that the phrase is meant to refer to ALL situations.  That no matter how vile or despicable the means, if the result is positive then it is justified.

That makes no sense though - of course the ends do not ALWAYS justify the means.

Well some people say they do. :mellow:  It's the strict utilitarian point of view.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:45:19 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 05:01:08 PM
So the former US government did not call for an economic and diplomatic isolation of Venezuela from it's neighbours?

Not that I am aware of.  More the other way around.

A sorry it was Chavez
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122 (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2138916720070122)

So now the bar for "interfering" is so low that simply criticizing another country is interference?

If so, please stop interfering in the US. KTHXBYE!

What a bunch of assholes the US is - interfering with other countries right to self determination, like the right of South Vietnam to determine that they want to be communist puppets!

Ok, give me an example in which the end does not justify the means.

And do not choose some stupid unrealistic end that no democracy would back.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:42:55 PM
Ok, give me an example in which the end does not justify the means.

And do not choose some stupid unrealistic end that no democracy would back.

Me being desirous of a cheeseburger does not justify me shooting you in the face to take yours.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 06:42:55 PM
Ok, give me an example in which the end does not justify the means.

And do not choose some stupid unrealistic end that no democracy would back.

The Final Solution

Ok, ok, we were talking modern politics.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 01:42:12 PM
What I meant was that after the democratically elected socialist Allende was diposed in a CIA sponsored military coup in Chile, that country went down the drain. What might have happend to Chile had the CIA decided not to meddle where they weren't supposed to we will never know, but it could hardly have been worse.
So any attempts by the US government and media to paint Chavez as a left-wing populist demagouge sounds rather hollow.

Given that Adolf Hitler was a European, it is sanctimonious and completely hollow for any European to have any opinions about any non-European country, government, or citizens.  That goes for the European media as well.  Hitler was an evil, evil man who has destroyed forever the credibility of all of his fellow-Europeans.

Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 06:27:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 06:17:03 PM
He was doing it just to get laid.

We he was very successful then by all accounts.

Indeed.  It really turns the "ends justify the means" discussion on it's head.  The collapse of a government in some south American shit hole is a small price to pay to get to bang some Hollywood starlet.

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 03:25:54 PM
FFS the point I'm trying to make is that the CIA and the US government removed the Chilean peoples right for self-determination, and that after the coup Chiles economy went down the drain. If it was a cause of Allendes policys or because of the selling of public owned companies after the coup I do not know and is irrelevant.

FFS learn some real history and not this made-up crap about how it was the CIA that overthrew Allende.  Sure, the US supported his overthrow, and the CIA provided some support and funding, but the coup was entirely Chilean, and would almost certainly have occurred when and as it did, given Allende's perceived commitment to abolish the Chilean legislature via a plebiscite.

Allende was not the beacon of democracy you so credulously assert (though, of course, neither were his opponents).  Democracy was extremely fragile in Chile when Allende took office, but he ignored that fact and proceeded to act as though he had been elected dictator and not president.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 04:35:57 PM

Quote from: Ape on September 03, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
Not to mention that there are striking similarites between Allende's Chile and Chavez' Venezuela such as that boh wished to nationalise natural resources (copper in Chile and Oil in Venezuela) owned by major corporations based in the USA.

Chavez has nationalized huge swaths of the economy and the US has just sat on its hands.  Its not 1973 anymore, the Cold War is long over.  If third world countries want to commit economic suicide the US doesn't interfere anymore.

What is especially amusing about Ape's made-up "facts" about the US government's control of the US media is that he matches it with made-up "facts" about Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil industry (which has, of course, been nationalized for thirty-plus years) and he is so disdainful of the truth that he didn't even check to see if any of his "facts" were even remotely plausible enough to give cover to the less-plausible ones!  :lol:

You guys are totally missing the point.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 07:42:42 PM
You guys are totally missing the point.

Yes, Switzerland should be partitioned along ethno-linguistic lines. :yes:

What kind of propoganda does the US media report? All I ever see them doing is reporting Chavez' statements. :huh:

Quote from: grumbler on September 03, 2009, 07:23:00 PM

Allende was not the beacon of democracy you so credulously assert (though, of course, neither were his opponents).  Democracy was extremely fragile in Chile when Allende took office, but he ignored that fact and proceeded to act as though he had been elected dictator and not president.

I dunno, these sound alot like the arguments for the Nationalist in Spain.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 08:10:50 PM
I dunno, these sound alot like the arguments for the Nationalist in Spain.

Spain 36 and Chile 73 are very similar situations.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 03, 2009, 07:44:49 PM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 07:42:42 PM
You guys are totally missing the point.

Yes, Switzerland should be partitioned along ethno-linguistic lines. :yes:

Switzerland should make English their official language and the problem will disappear.

Switzerland, Venezuela, and Chile should all be partitioned and destroyed.

Ok, Berkut and Grumbler should use avatars with diferent paint tones.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 08:54:29 PM
Ok, Berkut and Grumbler should use avatars with diferent paint tones.

This is true.

Quote from: Hansmeister on September 03, 2009, 04:54:40 PM
I thought we had already established in the old languish that there is no evidence that the CIA was behind the coup in Chile.  Indeed, similarly as in Honduras it was Allende who precipitated the crisis when he tried to set himself up as dictator leading to the revolt by the legislature, the judiciary, and the military against his rule.

Quote
FFS learn some real history and not this made-up crap about how it was the CIA that overthrew Allende.  Sure, the US supported his overthrow, and the CIA provided some support and funding, but the coup was entirely Chilean, and would almost certainly have occurred when and as it did, given Allende's perceived commitment to abolish the Chilean legislature via a plebiscite.

I refer you both to chapter V of the fine book by Christopher Hitchens, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", (http://books.google.se/books?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&pg=PA55&dq=In+a+famous+expression+of+his+contempt+for+democracy#v=onepage&q=In%20a%20famous%20expression%20of%20his%20contempt%20for%20democracy&f=false) 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".

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. :lol:


edit: link fixed

Another communist!  What's with it and communists in this thread?

Quote from: miglia on September 03, 2009, 10:32:47 PM

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. :lol:

Would you say that Sweden invaded France in 1941, since that would be a similar "distinction without a difference"?

How much support and funding must one provide for this distinction to lose its difference?

If I say "Wow, I really think the IRA is swell" and send them 48 cents, is that enough?

I refer you to the chapter I linked. I ask you to read it and then state whether you still believe US involvement to be analogous to Swedish involvement in the Nazi invasion of France or sending 48 cents to the IRA.

Quote from: grumbler on September 03, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
[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.

Quote from: miglia on September 03, 2009, 10:54:00 PM
I refer you to the chapter I linked. I ask you to read it and then state whether you still believe US involvement to be analogous to Swedish involvement in the Nazi invasion of France or sending 48 cents to the IRA.

Why would I do that?

Answer the question - what level of "support and financial assitance" is necessary to decide that there is no distinction between doing something yourself, and "supporting" someone else doing it?

Well we can surmise from the response that providing large quantities of iron ore to a raw materials starved war economy is not that significant.

Miglia? That sounds italian. From the north.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 11:00:48 PM

Quote from: miglia on September 03, 2009, 10:54:00 PM
I refer you to the chapter I linked. I ask you to read it and then state whether you still believe US involvement to be analogous to Swedish involvement in the Nazi invasion of France or sending 48 cents to the IRA.

Why would I do that?

Because it is well-written, short and to the point, will take no more than 5 minutes of your time, and you might learn something. Or perhaps you don't care about that, perhaps you only care about winning the argument, I don't know. 

Quote
Answer the question - what level of "support and financial assitance" is necessary to decide that there is no distinction between doing something yourself, and "supporting" someone else doing it?

Now why would I do that?

Because you are putting forth the claim that there is a "distinction without difference", and I am trying to figure what what lengths you are willing to go to in order to hold onto your article of faith that the nasty mean CIA "overthrew Allende".

You are making a claim. You certainly are under no obligation to defend your claim, however.

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.

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 10:46:20 PM

Quote from: miglia on September 03, 2009, 10:32:47 PM

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. :lol:

Would you say that Sweden invaded France in 1941, since that would be a similar "distinction without a difference"?

How much support and funding must one provide for this distinction to lose its difference?

If I say "Wow, I really think the IRA is swell" and send them 48 cents, is that enough?

It would probably land you in prison.

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 05:55:25 PM


Yeah, for failing to take over the world liberating the proletariad.

:lmfao:
Good try

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?

Either way your military sucks.

 :lol:

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 01:56:38 AM
:lol:

What are you laughing about?

You suck!!!1111

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

WRONG!!!Q!!!11111

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 07:42:42 PM
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?

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)

Quote from: Siege on September 03, 2009, 11:11:09 PM
Miglia? That sounds italian.

Yes just like Siege sounds French. 

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 12:41:07 AM
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?

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 02:12:37 AM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 10:59:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 03, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
[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

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 12:41:07 AM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 03, 2009, 10:59:18 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 03, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
[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?

Quote from: miglia on September 03, 2009, 10:32:47 PM
I refer you both to chapter V of the fine book by Christopher Hitchens, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", (http://books.google.se/books?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&pg=PA55&dq=In+a+famous+expression+of+his+contempt+for+democracy#v=onepage&q=In%20a%20famous%20expression%20of%20his%20contempt%20for%20democracy&f=false) 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.

QuoteAnd 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. :lol: 

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 09:22:46 AM
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.

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 10:35:05 AM
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.

That's because Kermit Roosevelt wanted to talk himself up and wrote a silly book claiming "credit" for the coup.

Joan, did you also read the after-word to the chapter on Chile, which quotes more recently declassified documents?

You try to make it sound as if the CIA provided tear gas and little more. From a de-classified memo, in the CIA's own words:

"CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander René Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allowed Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine guns and ammunition to the second group, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA's assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully."

I don't believe the euphemism of "kidnap" instead of "kill" is fooling anyone, but lest there is any doubt, the memo goes on to say that the Viaux group was given a large sum of money after the killing. Not as a reward for the killing, but for "humanitarian" reasons, among others. :lol: Surely you will not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum by suggesting that we take these euphemisms and thinly veiled attempts of deniability at face value?

And as for direct complicity in the 1973 coup, please allow me to quote from the text:

[Kissinger] falsely assured the Foreign Relations Committe that the United States government had played no part in the coup. From a thesaurus of hard information to the contrary, one might select Situation Report #2, from the Navy Section of the United States Military Group in Chile, and written by the US Naval Attaché, Patrick Ryan. Ryan describes his close relationship with the officers engaged in overthrowing the government, hails 11 September 1973 as "our D-Day" and observes with satisfaction that "Chile's coup de etat [sic] was close to perfect".

Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

And we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

We do not know, of course, whether the invasion of North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the USSR, and Norway would have happened without the backing of Sweden and the ore that was vital to the Nazi war machine.

But Sweden is without a single doubt complicit in the conquest of most of Europe and the extermination of the Jews and others, so yes, Sweden did kill all those people.

Good for the goose and all...

If you like, I can probably find some books and such detailing Swedish cooperation and aid to Nazi Germany during WW2.

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 11:19:33 AM
Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

Yes, if we use the term "overthrow" loosely enough, one can say this.  However, to argue that the nation of Chile didn't overthrow Allende is also to make a distinction without a difference, and so the CIA's role is fairly meaningless given that the country involved overthrew their president.

QuoteAnd we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

Indeed, we don't know whether the those who killed Schneider were "paid tools of the CIA" or not, nor whether Schneider would have lived until 1973 even had he not been attacked.

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 11:19:33 AM
Now, of course every move of coup was not carefully orchestrated by the CIA. Nor have I said anything of that kind. But the CIA is without a single doubt complicit in the over-throw of Allende, so yes, the CIA did overthrow Allende. So say that the CIA did not overthrow Allende, but merely provided support and funding, is indeed a distinction without a difference.

And we do not know, of course, whether the coup would have happened without the backing of this great power, without the paid tools of the CIA murdering those loyal to the constitution.

Wow the CIA goes from complicit (I mean clearly we were glad Allende got overthrown) to doing it themselves to having CIA agents running around murdering anybody who liked the Chilean Constitution.

Quote from: Tonitrus on September 04, 2009, 02:09:49 AM

Quote from: Berkut on September 03, 2009, 07:42:42 PM
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?

I dunno - a good case can be made for dividing Germany. :)

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 11:19:33 AM
Joan, did you also read the after-word to the chapter on Chile, which quotes more recently declassified documents?

You try to make it sound as if the CIA provided tear gas and little more. From a de-classified memo, in the CIA's own words:

"CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander René Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allowed Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine guns and ammunition to the second group, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA's assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully." 

The memo you refer to was the product of an "internal inquiry" authored in the year 2000, i.e. almost 30 years after the events it narrates.  It is neither contemporaneous nor a primary source; purports to be (and is) merely a summary.  Unfortunately, the drafting of the summary was done rather poorly .   It first says that "the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups", i.e. the Valenzuela group.  It then says "contact with one group of plotters [ie Viaux] was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies".  The next line is not a sentence at all and appears to have accidentally left out language.  What it appears to be saying is that the CIA had provided weapons in the Viaux group in the past (ie before "contact was dropped early on") and this group was the one that ultimately carried out the fatal attack.  It then clarifies again the CIA had withdrawn their support for this group.

To the extent this memo says anything concrete is does not support your position.  Rather it points out:
+ "We have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed."
+ The CIA did not support the Viaux group in its actions.

These conclusions of course dovetail with the principal contemperaneous primary source that Hitchens cites in his book: the October 15 cable recounting the conclusions of the meeting at which Kissenger and Webb were present.  At that meeting, not only did the principals agree that Viaux had little chance of success, Kissinger personally intervened to point out all the negative ramifications that would likely result.  As a consequence, the cable clearly states that the principals ordered the CIA to direct Viaux to stand down. 

But the most interesting thing about the memo Hitchens cites in his afterward is the part of the memo he carefully chose not to include in his book.  That is the part of the memo that directly addresses CIA involvement in the 1973 coup.  It reads as follows:

QuoteAwareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.  Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende's government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.  There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists' offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La Monedam Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life.

Not surprisingly, Hitchens somehow "forgot" to point out that part of the memo.

QuoteI don't believe the euphemism of "kidnap" instead of "kill" is fooling anyone

Kidnap is not a euphemsism.  It is a word in the English language that has a particular meaning, and that meaning does not happen to be "kill'.

Quotebut lest there is any doubt, the memo goes on to say that the Viaux group was given a large sum of money after the killing.

Actually, the memo goes onto the say the following:

Quoteand during meetings on 17 18 October [a CIA officer told a member of the Viaux group, that CIA would not entertain their request for support.  The officer warned them that any coup action on their part would be premature.  The Viaux representative said the coup was planned for 21-22 October, and the first step would be to kidnap General Schneider.  The Station doubted the plan because CIA had no corroborative intelligence and Viaux's group had a record of false starts.  On 22 October the Viaux group, acting independently of the CIA at that time, carried out an attempted abduction against General Schneider that resulted in his death. 

It then goes on to say that one month later the CIA paid a member of the group $35,000 of what was basically "hush money" to make sure he didn't spill the beans about the CIA's embarrassing earlier conacts with the group.  An understandable move given the risk of what Hitchens-like conspiracy nuts might do with such information.  I would not consider 35K in this context to be "a large mount of money" even in 1973.

QuoteAnd as for direct complicity in the 1973 coup, please allow me to quote from the text:

[Kissinger] falsely assured the Foreign Relations Committe that the United States government had played no part in the coup. From a thesaurus of hard information to the contrary, one might select Situation Report #2, from the Navy Section of the United States Military Group in Chile, and written by the US Naval Attaché, Patrick Ryan. Ryan describes his close relationship with the officers engaged in overthrowing the government, hails 11 September 1973 as "our D-Day" and observes with satisfaction that "Chile's coup de etat [sic] was close to perfect".

So an American naval attache expressed his support of the coup after the fact.  That is not evidence of CIA involvement.

The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2009, 02:18:01 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

No shit, do they teach about it in High School there as the text book example of AMERIKKKAN Imperialism?

This suddenly has me starting to wonder about the extent of our involvements in the Guatemala and Iran coups also.  I always just took it for granted we had caused those.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2009, 02:19:08 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2009, 02:18:01 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 04, 2009, 01:20:39 PM
The Chilean coup topic is like a dog-whistle for goofballs.

And Swedes. GODDAMN FUCKING NORDICS.

No shit, do they teach about it in High School there as the text book example of AMERIKKKAN Imperialism?

I think Seefor watched only documentaries. That was why he kept flapping his gums over alleged American crimes.

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
This suddenly has me starting to wonder about the extent of our involvements in the Guatemala and Iran coups also.  I always just took it for granted we had caused those.

I'm not aware of any dispute over whether or not we ousted Arbenz.... in fact hasn't the US gov't subsequently admitted to it?

I remember on Paradox my original name "Jaron Pinochet" used to piss so many Euros off. :cool:

Quote from: Jaron on September 04, 2009, 02:24:28 PM
I remember on Paradox my original name "Jaron Pinochet" used to piss so many Euros off. :cool:

It was: Awesome.

Quote from: Caliga on September 04, 2009, 02:23:27 PM
I'm not aware of any dispute over whether or not we ousted Arbenz.... in fact hasn't the US gov't subsequently admitted to it?

We I never heard there was any dispute over whether or not we ousted Allende either until I started learning about it.

The thing I find weird is the American focus on Chavez, which I just don't understand.  I think it's because he's colourful and stridently anti-American but he's not even the worst guy in Latin America.  In terms of international dictatorships the guy's a pussycat.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
The thing I find weird is the American focus on Chavez, which I just don't understand.  I think it's because he's colourful and stridently anti-American but he's not even the worst guy in Latin America.  In terms of international dictatorships the guy's a pussycat.

Venezuela is one of the richest and most important countries in Latin America.  The bigger countries get more attention.  And we do not really talk about him all that much he just pops up in Languish threads alot.

It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
The thing I find weird is the American focus on Chavez, which I just don't understand.  I think it's because he's colourful and stridently anti-American but he's not even the worst guy in Latin America.  In terms of international dictatorships the guy's a pussycat.

He's weird and he is very good at saying the kinds of things that wilol get him into the news.  I find it weird that so many Euros think that, because somebody is good at getting into the US news, there is some kind of "American focus" on him.  What you don't understand is that news organizations report on what they think viewers/readers will pay attention to, so those same viewers or readers will also view/read the ads that pay for the news in the US.  Chavez is less interesting to European news organizations because he isn't talking about European countries as his great enemy, by and large, and also he is far away from you and so of inherently less interest.

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM
It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

[Euro]That's all America's fault! [/Euro]

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
The thing I find weird is the American focus on Chavez, which I just don't understand.  I think it's because he's colourful and stridently anti-American but he's not even the worst guy in Latin America.  In terms of international dictatorships the guy's a pussycat.

I can think of 3 million barrels a day of reasons why.

Except of course that now it is more like 2.4 million.

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM
It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

But Brazil the biggest and the most important Latin American country has had a hugely successful past 15 years.  In the wider context that looks more like what's happening in the rest of Latin America, not Chavezismo.

In other words, why not show Lula some love? <_<

QuoteWhat you don't understand is that news organizations report on what they think viewers/readers will pay attention to, so those same viewers or readers will also view/read the ads that pay for the news in the US.  Chavez is less interesting to European news organizations because he isn't talking about European countries as his great enemy, by and large, and also he is far away from you and so of inherently less interest.

I think that's what I've said.  He's colourful and stridently anti-American so more interesting, but not any more important or egregiously tyrannical. 

I wish there was more news about Brazil.  I like Brazil better than Venezuela.  Can't that LuLu guy say some funny shit, but only harmless funny like Silvio does?

Silvio is not harmless. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 03:14:38 PM
Silvio is not harmless.

Commie.

Quote from: Caliga on September 04, 2009, 03:12:41 PM
I wish there was more news about Brazil.  I like Brazil better than Venezuela.  Can't that LuLu guy say some funny shit, but only harmless funny like Silvio does?

Maybe he'll have the golf courses closed like Hugo.  :)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 03:14:38 PM
Silvio is not harmless.

No Silvio reminds me of an early draft of Chavez in a developed country.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2009, 03:16:13 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 03:14:38 PM
Silvio is not harmless.

Commie.

He's not that either although with the head of government controlling all the media it might look that way.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 03:14:38 PM
Silvio is not harmless.

As an Italian leader, he is by definition harmless. ^_^

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
The thing I find weird is the American focus on Chavez, which I just don't understand.  I think it's because he's colourful and stridently anti-American but he's not even the worst guy in Latin America.  In terms of international dictatorships the guy's a pussycat.

Venezuela is one of the richest and most important countries in Latin America.  The bigger countries get more attention.  And we do not really talk about him all that much he just pops up in Languish threads alot.

It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

Every politician is a populist.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 03:10:46 PM
But Brazil the biggest and the most important Latin American country has had a hugely successful past 15 years.  In the wider context that looks more like what's happening in the rest of Latin America, not Chavezismo.

In other words, why not show Lula some love? <_<

Huh?  I love that guy.  I have slobbered over him in this thread and nearly every other one about South America.  If South Americans want to elect leftists they should elect people like him.  How many times do I have to announce my slavish manlove for Lula on this board?

Brazil gives me happy warm fuzzies everytime I think of it.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Every politician is a populist.

Ok another guy who is going to loot his country to pay everybody off in an unsustainable way so as to screw his country's prospects for the short term prospect of maintaining his own power.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 03:10:46 PM
I think that's what I've said.  He's colourful and stridently anti-American so more interesting, but not any more important or egregiously tyrannical. 

:bleeding: Are you really this ignorant about him and what he represents?  I swear do they just totally ignore South America in Europe?

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 03:39:33 PM
:bleeding: Are you really this ignorant about him and what he represents?  I swear do they just totally ignore South America in Europe?

I don't think what he does is as important as similar decisions made by, say, Mubarak or Hu.  Equally I don't think he's that tyrannical compared to similar tyrants.  To me he seems like a colourful and far less important Putin (and I imagine Putin gets more Western newsprint when he strides around topless than for any other single thing he does in a year).

Just for the record, not all of us swedes are as loopy as Ape and miglia. Only a huge majority.

fjbdfhgklhgsuehfufhaefah

Don't know what to say but I like to post.

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 03:36:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Every politician is a populist.

Ok another guy who is going to loot his country to pay everybody off in an unsustainable way so as to screw his country's prospects for the short term prospect of maintaining his own power.

Fine.  Just don't use populist incorrectly.  It's annoying!

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
This suddenly has me starting to wonder about the extent of our involvements in the Guatemala and Iran coups also.  I always just took it for granted we had caused those.

I read the Wiki on Iran a while back and was surprised by two things.

a) The Shah had the consitutional authority to remove the PM.
b) Mossadeq was elected PM by a vote in the assembly (12-4 IIRC), not by a popular vote as I had assumed.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 04:44:22 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 03:36:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Every politician is a populist.

Ok another guy who is going to loot his country to pay everybody off in an unsustainable way so as to screw his country's prospects for the short term prospect of maintaining his own power.

Fine.  Just don't use populist incorrectly.  It's annoying!

Populist.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 04:17:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 03:39:33 PM
:bleeding: Are you really this ignorant about him and what he represents?  I swear do they just totally ignore South America in Europe?

I don't think what he does is as important as similar decisions made by, say, Mubarak or Hu.  Equally I don't think he's that tyrannical compared to similar tyrants.  To me he seems like a colourful and far less important Putin (and I imagine Putin gets more Western newsprint when he strides around topless than for any other single thing he does in a year).

But I think you answered your own question - he gets the press because he is colourful and strident.  You may well be right that as a dictator his citizen's are probably better off than under Mubarak, but Chavez does make for much better copy.

There's also however the fact that Venezuela is in America's "back yard" and is a country that has made this turn away from democracy quite recently.  As such it's hard to compare to countries that are further away and that have little history of prosperity or democracy.

Plus Venezuela is important due to their greatest national asset. No, not oil. Beauty pageant winners.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 01:03:04 PM
The memo you refer to was the product of an "internal inquiry" authored in the year 2000, i.e. almost 30 years after the events it narrates.  It is neither contemporaneous nor a primary source; purports to be (and is) merely a summary.  Unfortunately, the drafting of the summary was done rather poorly .   It first says that "the CIA provided weapons to one of the groups", i.e. the Valenzuela group.  It then says "contact with one group of plotters [ie Viaux] was dropped early on because of it's extremist tendencies".  The next line is not a sentence at all and appears to have accidentally left out language.  What it appears to be saying is that the CIA had provided weapons in the Viaux group in the past (ie before "contact was dropped early on") and this group was the one that ultimately carried out the fatal attack.  It then clarifies again the CIA had withdrawn their support for this group.

To the extent this memo says anything concrete is does not support your position.  Rather it points out:
+ "We have found no information that the plotters' or CIA's intention was for the general to be killed."
+ The CIA did not support the Viaux group in its actions.

These conclusions of course dovetail with the principal contemperaneous primary source that Hitchens cites in his book: the October 15 cable recounting the conclusions of the meeting at which Kissenger and Webb were present.  At that meeting, not only did the principals agree that Viaux had little chance of success, Kissinger personally intervened to point out all the negative ramifications that would likely result.  As a consequence, the cable clearly states that the principals ordered the CIA to direct Viaux to stand down. 

But the most interesting thing about the memo Hitchens cites in his afterward is the part of the memo he carefully chose not to include in his book.  That is the part of the memo that directly addresses CIA involvement in the 1973 coup.  It reads as follows:

QuoteAwareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.  Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende's government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.  There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists' offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La Monedam Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life.

Not surprisingly, Hitchens somehow "forgot" to point out that part of the memo.

The book is terse and to the point from start to end. I don't think he "forgot" to include that part of the memo - it is no more than more meaningless white noise and obscuration, much like the claim that the money was paid the killers for "humanitarian" reasons! There are of course many ways one can choose to interpret the text. I consider you a highly intelligent poster, so I will choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you really do not take the official version fully at face value.

Quote

QuoteI don't believe the euphemism of "kidnap" instead of "kill" is fooling anyone

Kidnap is not a euphemsism.  It is a word in the English language that has a particular meaning, and that meaning does not happen to be "kill'.

You're right it is not a euphemsism, whatever that means, but I do belive it might qualify as a euphemism:


euphemism
1656, from Gk. euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one," from euphemizein "speak with fair words," from eu- "good" + pheme "speaking," from phanai "speak" (see fame). In ancient Greece, the superstitious avoidance of words of ill-omen during religious ceremonies, or substitutions such as Eumenides "the Gracious Ones" for the Furies (see also Euxine). In Eng., a rhetorical term at first; broader sense of "choosing a less distasteful word or phrase than the one meant" is first attested 1793.


The more distasteful word of kill is replaced by the slightly less distasteful one of kidnap. Or am I missing some nuance here? Please bare with me, if so, because not all of us have the fortune to have English as our first language.

But I hope you understood what I was saying anyway, surely my English is not that bad?

Quotebut lest there is any doubt, the memo goes on to say that the Viaux group was given a large sum of money after the killing.

Actually, the memo goes onto the say the following:

Quote

Quoteand during meetings on 17 18 October [a CIA officer told a member of the Viaux group, that CIA would not entertain their request for support.  The officer warned them that any coup action on their part would be premature.  The Viaux representative said the coup was planned for 21-22 October, and the first step would be to kidnap General Schneider.  The Station doubted the plan because CIA had no corroborative intelligence and Viaux's group had a record of false starts.  On 22 October the Viaux group, acting independently of the CIA at that time, carried out an attempted abduction against General Schneider that resulted in his death. 

It then goes on to say that one month later the CIA paid a member of the group $35,000 of what was basically "hush money" to make sure he didn't spill the beans about the CIA's embarrassing earlier conacts with the group.  An understandable move given the risk of what Hitchens-like conspiracy nuts might do with such information.  I would not consider 35K in this context to be "a large mount of money" even in 1973.

Right. :lol: I will leave it to the reader to conclude whether paying 35 000 $ to the murderers after a murder is a good way to distance yourself from them, and whether $35 000 is a large or small amount of money in the Chile of 1973.

QuoteYes, if we use the term "overthrow" loosely enough, one can say this.  However, to argue that the nation of Chile didn't overthrow Allende is also to make a distinction without a difference,

I have argued no such thing.

Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
We do not know, of course, whether the invasion of North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the USSR, and Norway would have happened without the backing of Sweden and the ore that was vital to the Nazi war machine.

But Sweden is without a single doubt complicit in the conquest of most of Europe and the extermination of the Jews and others, so yes, Sweden did kill all those people.

Good for the goose and all...

If you like, I can probably find some books and such detailing Swedish cooperation and aid to Nazi Germany during WW2.

Right, you're still on about this. :rolleyes:

Consider the motives. Sweden was a small country, surrounded by mighty enemies, that saw it's Nordic neighbours be conquered. Try to think yourself into the Swedish position - what would you have done? Commit the hostile act of embargoing Nazi Germany? Can you really tell me, with a straight face, that you would have done that? I'm not saying we tried to preserve our independence for anything other than selfish reasons, but it did allow us to harbour the jews of Denmark and Norway, and even political enemies of Nazi germany (including my grandmother, though most of her family was not so lucky as to escape).

Now consider the American case. Chile posed no threat and was of little strategic value. No one was forcing the hand of America, the most powerful country in the world, at liberty to select any course of action or simply do nothing at all.

With great power comes great responsibility. Now please don't go all martyr on me and tell me you're the poor unfortunate victim of mindless anti-americanism, as is your habit.

Like Threviel and others above, you don't know shit about me and my views. And I don't speak for Ape. His views are his own, and my views are my own.

Is the fat American bothering you, miglia? :mad:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 04:53:41 PM
b) Mossadeq was elected PM by a vote in the assembly (12-4 IIRC), not by a popular vote as I had assumed.

That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM
No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Then what was the significance of your last post?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:09:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM
No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Then what was the significance of your last post?

Most countries vote for parties, or individual MPs representing a party.  Then the majority party forms the government.  Mossadeq is very unusual in that he was an independent MP all through his career, even when PM.

Please answer the question, Sheilbh.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Israel does.  Always sounded like a silly system.

Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 06:15:24 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Israel does.  Always sounded like a silly system.

Fucking Ukrainian Nazis. <_<

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 03:10:46 PM
I think that's what I've said.  He's colourful and stridently anti-American so more interesting, but not any more important or egregiously tyrannical. 

No, what you said was that you "find weird" the "American focus on Chavez" which you "just don't understand."  I have explained that it isn't a focus on Chavez, and therefor isn't weird, and is easy to understand.  He knows how to get into the news a lot even in the absence of any "weird" American "focus."

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Every politician is a populist.

:lmfao:

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
Fine.  Just don't use populist incorrectly.  It's annoying!

Took the words right out of my mouth!  :lol:

"Every politician is a populist" is the classic misuse of the term.

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 05:59:16 PM
Consider the motives. Sweden was a small country, surrounded by mighty enemies, that saw it's Nordic neighbours be conquered. Try to think yourself into the Swedish position - what would you have done? Commit the hostile act of embargoing Nazi Germany? Can you really tell me, with a straight face, that you would have done that? I'm not saying we tried to preserve our independence for anything other than selfish reasons, but it did allow us to harbour the jews of Denmark and Norway, and even political enemies of Nazi germany (including my grandmother, though most of her family was not so lucky as to escape).

I find this excuse-making for the Swedish murder of six million Jews pathetic.  And the use of the euphemism "harbor" for "genocide" is reprehensible.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
Most countries vote for parties, or individual MPs representing a party.  Then the majority party forms the government.  Mossadeq is very unusual in that he was an independent MP all through his career, even when PM.

I think that Yi is saying that he didn't know this (at least in Iran's case).  A lot of people also don't know that Mossadeq abolished Parliament, which was the immediate step which led to his overthrow (after the US/British-backed coup attempt had failed).  Mossadeq would have survived in power if he hadn't over-reacted to the coup attempt, IMO.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Israel did :contract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_prime_ministerial_election,_1999

Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2009, 07:27:36 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 04, 2009, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
That's because Mossadeq never joined a political party.  He formed his coalitions with other parties but was never a member of one, far less a leader.

I don't follow.  Either Iran had a popular vote for PM back in the 50s or they didn't.

No country has popular vote for PM, to my knowledge :mellow:

Israel did :contract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_prime_ministerial_election,_1999

:contract:


And


:grumbler:

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 06:52:01 PM
Mossadeq would have survived in power if he hadn't over-reacted to the coup attempt, IMO.

I don't think that's fair.  The British and Americans had worked to destabilise Mossadeq for a while.  They'd bribed a number of important figures and recruited others, there'd been a propaganda campaign, they'd supported bombings from agents provocateurs within the Iranian Communist Party (which was, of course, far weaker than was believed) and had reluctantly brought the Shah on board.  Those Iranians had taken the initiative a few times and, for example, spoken to some Ayatollahs to try and drum up the existing anti-Mossadeq feeling in Qom.

What happened in the coup was that everything the British and Americans wanted to happen, didn't happen or went disastrously wrong and that the Iranian elements they'd already recruited took matters into their own hands, with good reason.  The CIA was thinking of evacuating and the repurcussions for Iranians would be even worse.  I don't know that after the work done prior to the coup whether it could really have not happened, especially because funds were nowhere near exhausted.  Roosevelt arrived with one million and only spent one hundred thousand dollars, the CIA spent a further five million after the coup to help stabilise things.  I think the CIA operation prior to the coup, which destabilised the country, could have continued and was so successful that something had to happen.

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 06:38:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
Fine.  Just don't use populist incorrectly.  It's annoying!

Took the words right out of my mouth!  :lol:

"Every politician is a populist" is the classic misuse of the term.

What ever.  Clearly we have different definitions of the word.  I seem funny to you because I simply have the right one.

Quote from: miglia on September 04, 2009, 05:59:16 PM
The book is terse and to the point from start to end. I don't think he "forgot" to include that part of the memo - it is no more than more meaningless white noise and obscuration, much like the claim that the money was paid the killers for "humanitarian" reasons! There are of course many ways one can choose to interpret the text. I consider you a highly intelligent poster, so I will choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you really do not take the official version fully at face value.

The book really is not terse; it is full of lots of irrelevant hearsay and innuendo.  I can accept the claim that the official story should not be taken at face value.  But in order to draw an alternative conclusion, I need some kind of careful, reasoned look at the hard evidence.  Hitchens is too busy crafting a cranky jeremiad against a personality (HK) to perform that kind of cold, objective analysis.

QuoteThe more distasteful word of kill is replaced by the slightly less distasteful one of kidnap. Or am I missing some nuance here? Please bare with me, if so, because not all of us have the fortune to have English as our first language.

The nuance is that the words mean two different things, and those different meanings have nothing to do with tastefulness (what exactly is less distasteful about kidnapping?). 

Because your English is in fact very good (and your spelling apparently even better) I suspect you already know this.

QuoteRight. :lol: I will leave it to the reader to conclude whether paying 35 000 $ to the murderers after a murder is a good way to distance yourself from them

Pretty clearly it wasn't or we wouldn't be talking about it now.   ;)  That would tend to show the CIA acted foolishly or incompetently, which would not exactly be a huge surprise, and which also would not help prove Hitchens' argument.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 06:11:27 PM
Mossadeq is very unusual in that he was an independent MP all through his career, even when PM.

He was very unusual, period.

Not that it is such a bad thing . . .

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 02:48:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM
It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

[Euro]That's all America's fault! [/Euro]

The USA's actions in the americas over the last 2 centuries: net positive, net negative?

QuoteCritics march against Chavez across Latin America
By SUSANA LONDONO, Associated Press

BOGOTA – Thousands of opponents of Hugo Chavez marched against the Venezuelan president across Latin America on Friday, accusing him of everything from authoritarianism to international meddling.

The protests, coordinated through Twitter and Facebook, drew more than 5,000 people in Bogota, and thousands more in the capitals of Venezuela and Honduras. Smaller demonstrations were held in other Latin American capitals, as well as New York and Madrid.

The Honduras march was led by Roberto Micheletti, who became president when Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a June coup.

"Any politician who tries to stay in power by hitching up with a dictator like Hugo Chavez, he won't achieve it," Micheletti said. "We'll stop him."

Chavez, who was traveling in Syria, ridiculed the protests, likening Micheletti to a gorilla and saying: "Those who want to march, march with 'Goriletti,' the dictators, the extreme right."

Chavez supporters held smaller counter-demonstrations, including a Caracas rally that drew nearly 200 people. Police in Quito, Ecuador, intervened to keep pro- and anti-Chavez groups from clashing.

Turnout at the anti-Chavez rallies was far from massive in many cities. A dozen people gathered in Sao Paulo, while about 200 turned out in New York, Madrid and Miami. Protests also were held in the capitals of Argentina, Ecuador, Chile, Panama and Bolivia.

Protest organizer Marcela Garzon in Colombia said she didn't care about the numbers.

"The quantity doesn't interest us, but rather the quality," she said.


Associated Press writers Fabiola Sanchez in Caracas, Venezuela, Jeanneth Valdivieso in Quito, Ecuador, and Freddy Cuevas in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, contributed to this report.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20090904%2Fcapt.a2f134cb4e964666813213fe59617fdb.venezuela_anti_chavez_protest_xac108.jpg&hash=cb40b27cad53427014f23cfc30e59531468e7699)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Frids%2F20090904%2Fi%2Fr2945152328.jpg&hash=42da80aaecbce9caecf557cb3a8aa7133aad0a67)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20090905%2Fcapt.d91c42c3d21d4cd08b7989d8e5723a72.anti_chavez_protests_flad107.jpg&hash=03d2f9737ed4690e7bba05c4cd739d4c874735e8)

Quote from: Zoupa on September 05, 2009, 12:20:18 AM

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 02:48:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM
It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

[Euro]That's all America's fault! [/Euro]

The USA's actions in the americas over the last 2 centuries: net positive, net negative?

Positive.  The USA has prospered under it's own rule in the Americas.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 05, 2009, 12:20:18 AM

Quote from: grumbler on September 04, 2009, 02:48:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2009, 02:45:28 PM
It just saddens me to see yet another fucking South American populist setting his country back decades.  It gets really tiresome and makes you despair a bit if the continent will ever sort itself out.

[Euro]That's all America's fault! [/Euro]

The USA's actions in the americas over the last 2 centuries: net positive, net negative?

Well, as far as the Anglo-Saxon America is concerned, it was clearly positive.

And as far as the Latin America is concerned, the governments there have proven to be equally capable of fucking their own people with or without America's help, so the influence there is a net zero, imo.

Thus, in total it is net positive.

Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 04:07:05 AM
Well, as far as the Anglo-Saxon America is concerned, it was clearly positive.

And as far as the Latin America is concerned, the governments there have proven to be equally capable of fucking their own people with or without America's help, so the influence there is a net zero, imo.

Thus, in total it is net positive.

:hug:

LOL American oppression of fags conveniently forgotten to score some brownie points with American posters. Classy.

We leave Latin American governments free to oppress their own gays.

Quote from: The Brain on September 05, 2009, 06:35:15 AM
LOL American oppression of fags conveniently forgotten to score some brownie points with American posters. Classy.

:lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 09:47:35 PM
He was very unusual, period.

Not that it is such a bad thing . . .

This is true.  He was very eccentric.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 04, 2009, 08:59:28 PM
I don't think that's fair.  The British and Americans had worked to destabilise Mossadeq for a while.  They'd bribed a number of important figures and recruited others, there'd been a propaganda campaign, they'd supported bombings from agents provocateurs within the Iranian Communist Party (which was, of course, far weaker than was believed) and had reluctantly brought the Shah on board.  Those Iranians had taken the initiative a few times and, for example, spoken to some Ayatollahs to try and drum up the existing anti-Mossadeq feeling in Qom.

I am not sure what isn't "fair" about my having an opinion, but on the larger issue, while it is true that the US and (especially) the British had worked to destabilize Mossadeq's Iran, he still retained a pretty powerful popular mandate, and one the Army was reluctant to test.

QuoteWhat happened in the coup was that everything the British and Americans wanted to happen, didn't happen or went disastrously wrong and that the Iranian elements they'd already recruited took matters into their own hands, with good reason.  The CIA was thinking of evacuating and the repurcussions for Iranians would be even worse.  I don't know that after the work done prior to the coup whether it could really have not happened, especially because funds were nowhere near exhausted.  Roosevelt arrived with one million and only spent one hundred thousand dollars, the CIA spent a further five million after the coup to help stabilise things.  I think the CIA operation prior to the coup, which destabilised the country, could have continued and was so successful that something had to happen.

I would be very, very careful about using Roosevelt as a source (which some of this sounds like) because he had a definite agenda in the way he presented the story.  As you note, he and the British had actually failed miserably, and the Iranian Army officers they had counted on were preparing to flee the country (as the Shah already had) when Mossadeq suspended the constitution and (again) dissolved parliament.  This was a pretty crucial moment, because it turned a lot of the junior army officer against Mossadeq, and convinced the more senior officers involved in the coup that they should try again.

Whether Mossadeq could have lasted a lot longer, given the forces arrayed against him, is certainly debatable.  I don't think it is "unfair" to say, though, that the British and American coup against him had failed until he reinvigorated it by over-reacting and dissolving parliament  and declaring rule by decree.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 09:37:19 PM
What ever.  Clearly we have different definitions of the word.  I seem funny to you because I simply have the right one.

The definition you have isn't just wrong, it is non-existent.  No pre-existing definition of "populist" includes every politician.

Quote from: Zoupa on September 05, 2009, 12:20:18 AM
The USA's actions in the americas over the last 2 centuries: net positive, net negative?

Net positive.

Cuba achieved independence.  Puerto Rico achieved kind of independence. (And it's theirs for the asking now.)

The Monroe Doctrine prevented an Ottoman-type recievership for Venezuela, and more generally helped Latin American countries to maintain some of the lowest military spending/GDP ratios in the world.

The countries that have followed more market friendly economic policies (promoted by the US) have done better than those that nationalized and appropriated and socialized and deficit spent their way to social justice.

The US led bailout of Mexico prevented a massive economic collapse.

Quote from: The Brain on September 05, 2009, 06:35:15 AM
LOL American oppression of fags conveniently forgotten to score some brownie points with American posters. Classy.

:lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 05, 2009, 06:41:00 AM
We leave Latin American governments free to oppress their own gays.

Actually, Latin America has a surprisingly mixed/complex record on gay rights. In some countries it is surprisingly progressive (for example, recently Cuba).

Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:48:51 PM
Actually, Latin America has a surprisingly mixed/complex record on gay rights. In some countries it is surprisingly progressive (for example, recently Cuba).

I don't know that it is that surprising that it's mixed.  Some countries are more conservative (in many ways) others are not too far from where Spain or Portugal are on gay rights.