Powell's Comments Re: Chile '73

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by Azazel
This post will forever and always be used by apolyton's neo-cons to prove that the US was right in its' support for Pinochet, and was actually following the voice of the people of Chile.

of course... but anyway the US didn't help us too much. They gave money trough the ITT company to do some sort of 'propaganda' actions.

But a coup is sad, even if it looking for an end of a horrible governement. Sept. 11, 1973 was the break of 163 years of democracy

[Az]

... but then why there isn't a third choice.. one in the middle.

That, sonny, is the multi-billion dollar in oil revenews question.

[South killer]

Chilean... me decepcionas.)
Chile should be proud to have had a president like Allende. Wether you agree with his ideas or not he was a man that died for his beliefs You just can't say he was Jack@ss. Most of the economic stability Chile has now (in comparison with other soth american countries) was thanks to Allende's economic policies. he nationalised a lot of companies there,from what i know. (notice that i don't know that much, as i'm not chilean)
About venezuela it's the same case. An somewhat honest politican comes to power, nationalises enterprises and ends the party for American bussinessmen. then USA causes inestability and tries to make a coup.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by South killer
That is just another example of what usa has done, not only in Chile, but in many others parts of the world. For example, in argentina the military junta that started the falklands war was helped by usa to get to power.
The same has done usa in cuba (batista), in Irak (Guess who placed saddam in power???) and in many other places. During the '60 ,'70 and '80 USA implemented in latin america the ''national security progamme'' or something like that, that wasn't nothing more that aiding all military dictators in all latin american countries. There was even a period in which ALL (Yes i said ALL)latin american countries from Argentina to Mexico including brazil, chile, uruguay, etc. had a dictator placed or aided by USA. That's why i'm not anti-american, but anti american foreign policy. The american people has to wake up and realise that all the stories your government tells you are LIES, excuses to plant dictators, organise wars, and steal other countries.

In 1938, the USA was 13th in world Power. That right 12 other countries had more power than we did. The US did very little in Central and South America until after W.W.II. We did help Panama gain freedom from Colombia and we sent the Marines to Guatemala in 1923? That is about it. Your anti-American attitude is showing.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Lo sé South, tarde o temprano pasarÃa.. pero deja que esto paso hace milenios.. y no estoy apoyando a Pinochet, sino que.. bueno es complicado. Allende hizo cosas muy malas también, el problema es que fuera de Chile eso no se sabe ya que lo han mitificado.


You're way wrong about "Allende's economic policies", he believe that every industry, corporation, bank or whatever should be on the hand of the state (obviously cause he was a communist), but the actual economic situation of Chile is thanks to the reforms of Hernan Büchi (minister of Economics) and Jose Miguel Piñera (also in M.o.E.) who took the economic model of Friedman (el monetarismo.. don't know the name in english) and build the new open market economy, during the military government.

Allende maybe was a good man, but he commit a lot of mistakes. In social welfare, economics and even civil rights (he wanted to ban the right-wings parties).

Again, a dictatorial government isn't good, but if you compare Castro's Cuba to the Pinochet administration you will find that in one hand Cuba is after 50 year a dictatorship and Chile have democracy again after a free election under the Pinochet Adm., Cuba have a underdeveloped economy meanwhile Chile is signing free trade agreements with the US, Japan, UE and Korea (well the FTA with the US could be sign in a really long time due to the Chilean refuse to the war )

[Spiffor]

Joseph : I think the European powers haven't meddled in South America long before WW2. Actually, the core of the monroe doctrine (early 19th century) was to consider the rest of the Americas should be influenced by the US and not the rest of the world.
IIRC, Europe has stopped to play any significant role in SA since the Spanish-American war.

[academia]

"but because they believed that had the Allende regime continued much longer, Chilean liberties would be irretrievably lost."

Hehe... and i assume that Pinochet was the correct answer in order to protect those liberties

[academia]

We did help Panama gain freedom from Colombia

Nice joke

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Joseph : I think the European powers haven't meddled in South America long before WW2. Actually, the core of the monroe doctrine (early 19th century) was to consider the rest of the Americas should be influenced by the US and not the rest of the world.
IIRC, Europe has stopped to play any significant role in SA since the Spanish-American war.

You will notice that I did not say Europe did anything in C. and S. America. I just pointed out, that the US had little to do with those countries until after the war.

[Spiffor]

That's right.

[South killer]

that the US had little to do with those countries until after the war.

It had little to do OFICIALLY. But underground the CIA Supported most of the military coups.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by South killer


It had little to do OFICIALLY. But underground the CIA Supported most of the military coups.

We did not have a CIA until 1948/9, so how many dictator did we install before 1948?

[academia]

In my opinion, the CIA didn´t "install" dictators directly. Just supported them
They were forced to make a choice:
What do we want in southamerica? Dictatorships or Left-wing governments?

Obviously, CIA chose option 1. That´s all.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Powell for president

but if that happened an American president is overdue a successful assasination already so

[Ned]

I don't know what people mean at times when they say we "helped" "supported" "placed" or "instigated' this or that dictator to get into power. I would like some clarification on this from the proponents of the theory.

As to Chile, I suspect the conspirators checked with the CIA concerning what they planned to do. I am willing to bet that Nixon and Kissinger gave the conspirators a green light. This does not mean that the US instigated anything. However, I believe we could have stopped it if we said no.

Does anyone know if events unfolded in this fashion?

This is what happened a few years earlier with Diem in SV. He was overthrown and killed by his own people. However, the conspirators first checked with Kennedy, who did not say no.

As to the aftermath, Pinochet appears to have gone a little too far. I remember that he allegedly had communists step out of helocopters over the ocean. I doubt that the US "supported," such actions in the sense that we participated in them or approved of them.

But I think the left contends that we support a dictator if we provide the dictator military aid. In this sense, I might agree that we "supported" Pinochet. But at the same time, I am certain that we supported a return to democracy in due course.

But this is pure speculation on my part. I do not know what actually happened. I'd rather deal in fact than pure conjecture.