Comments on: Two Septembers http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Thu, 24 May 2012 08:20:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3716 Thorley Winston Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:29:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3716 Novakant wrote: <blockquote> hmmm, your tale about the two “options” the US had at the time implies a dangerous proposition: That it is perfectly legitimate for a superpower to topple a democratically elected president of a much weaker country at any time if he doesn’t fit into that power’s global strategy. </blockquote> I cannot speak on behalf of Brian O’Connel (who is doing a wonderful job on his own but may not agree with the point I am about to make) but why is it relevant whether or not Salvador Allende won 36% of the vote of his people in an election? If democracy is anything more than “two wolves and a sheep voting for the dinner menu” then it must protect the rights of the minority by prohibiting the initiation of force against its citizens. By nationalizing private property (e.g. businesses and farms), Allende’s government lost its legitimacy and its citizens had a natural right to overthrow an oppressive government. Particularly one which was bringing in foreign troops from an enemy power to use against its citizens. <blockquote> So it seems in your mind the Chileans could vote for whomever they wanted, if the US didn’t like the outcome of the vote he would be out of office in no time. That’s an interesting perception of democracy. </blockquote> In some cases I agree it would be right to overthrow a democratically elected/lawfully chosen government. Take Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was “democratically elected” by the majority of citizens of his nation. His group then proceeded to send in armed troops to confiscate the property of a minority of the citizens and killing those who fought in defense of their property (much like Salvador Allende). In a case like that, the minority being oppressed by a government that steals their property had every right to fight back. In so far as some of the victims of the Allende regime’s oppression were American citizens, they had a right to appeal to their own government to protect their property from foreign expropriators. Moreover by trying to ally his nation with our Soviet enemies, I think a good case can be made that we were right to regard the Allende government as an enemy and support action taken against them. We had every right for our own security to prevent the people who threatened us with missiles in Cuba from gaining a foothold in South America. Again, no one has argued that everything done after the Allende government was overthrown was justified. I’m willing to agree that it is possible that innocents were tortured and murdered and Pinochet was probably not a great guy. Both Allende and Pinochet are guilty of repression, in that both used government to suppress dissent (Allende went so far as to ban Donald Duck for promoting capitalism). However Allende by his policies of expropriating private property, arming the left-wing militias who terrorized the people, and aligning himself with the Soviets was a worse monster then Pinochet. Pinochet’s “atrocities” (in so far as he is guilty of them) seem mainly directed at members and supporters of the Allende regime which while it may not excuse them is still an important contextual difference IMNHO. Novakant wrote:
hmmm, your tale about the two “options” the US had at the time implies a dangerous proposition: That it is perfectly legitimate for a superpower to topple a democratically elected president of a much weaker country at any time if he doesn’t fit into that power’s global strategy.
I cannot speak on behalf of Brian O’Connel (who is doing a wonderful job on his own but may not agree with the point I am about to make) but why is it relevant whether or not Salvador Allende won 36% of the vote of his people in an election? If democracy is anything more than “two wolves and a sheep voting for the dinner menu” then it must protect the rights of the minority by prohibiting the initiation of force against its citizens. By nationalizing private property (e.g. businesses and farms), Allende’s government lost its legitimacy and its citizens had a natural right to overthrow an oppressive government. Particularly one which was bringing in foreign troops from an enemy power to use against its citizens.
So it seems in your mind the Chileans could vote for whomever they wanted, if the US didn’t like the outcome of the vote he would be out of office in no time. That’s an interesting perception of democracy.
In some cases I agree it would be right to overthrow a democratically elected/lawfully chosen government. Take Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was “democratically elected” by the majority of citizens of his nation. His group then proceeded to send in armed troops to confiscate the property of a minority of the citizens and killing those who fought in defense of their property (much like Salvador Allende). In a case like that, the minority being oppressed by a government that steals their property had every right to fight back. In so far as some of the victims of the Allende regime’s oppression were American citizens, they had a right to appeal to their own government to protect their property from foreign expropriators. Moreover by trying to ally his nation with our Soviet enemies, I think a good case can be made that we were right to regard the Allende government as an enemy and support action taken against them. We had every right for our own security to prevent the people who threatened us with missiles in Cuba from gaining a foothold in South America. Again, no one has argued that everything done after the Allende government was overthrown was justified. I’m willing to agree that it is possible that innocents were tortured and murdered and Pinochet was probably not a great guy. Both Allende and Pinochet are guilty of repression, in that both used government to suppress dissent (Allende went so far as to ban Donald Duck for promoting capitalism). However Allende by his policies of expropriating private property, arming the left-wing militias who terrorized the people, and aligning himself with the Soviets was a worse monster then Pinochet. Pinochet’s “atrocities” (in so far as he is guilty of them) seem mainly directed at members and supporters of the Allende regime which while it may not excuse them is still an important contextual difference IMNHO.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3715 Thorley Winston Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:29:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3715 Citizen K wrote: <blockquote> Sentiments like this are on par with denials of Nazi extermination, apologies for Southern slavery, and other statements which prove either irresponsible ignorance or moral turpitude beyond any acceptable bounds. It’s interesting that such declarations are now usually bound up in some meaningless qualifiers. In any case, one cannot debate people who excuse torture or deny the open historical record. </blockquote> So nice that you’ve decided to raise the level of debate with red herrings about slavery and the Holocaust. Please find for me the portion of my earlier remarks in which I disputed that the “atrocities” (I put the word in quotes because I think there is ample room for debate as to what qualifies as an “atrocity” – e.g. over a thousand of the deaths occurring as part of the fighting is not the same as stealing people from their homes in the dead of night and planting them in a shallow grave in the jungle). And yes, given that the people who wish to blame the United States for our actions there in 1973 seem to be unaware of how much of the Junta was local and more importantly, seem willing to excuse the actions of the Allende government, I think some “qualifiers” are warranted. Especially when this thread was about discussing “putting actions in context.” Citizen K wrote:
Sentiments like this are on par with denials of Nazi extermination, apologies for Southern slavery, and other statements which prove either irresponsible ignorance or moral turpitude beyond any acceptable bounds. It’s interesting that such declarations are now usually bound up in some meaningless qualifiers. In any case, one cannot debate people who excuse torture or deny the open historical record.
So nice that you’ve decided to raise the level of debate with red herrings about slavery and the Holocaust. Please find for me the portion of my earlier remarks in which I disputed that the “atrocities” (I put the word in quotes because I think there is ample room for debate as to what qualifies as an “atrocity” – e.g. over a thousand of the deaths occurring as part of the fighting is not the same as stealing people from their homes in the dead of night and planting them in a shallow grave in the jungle). And yes, given that the people who wish to blame the United States for our actions there in 1973 seem to be unaware of how much of the Junta was local and more importantly, seem willing to excuse the actions of the Allende government, I think some “qualifiers” are warranted. Especially when this thread was about discussing “putting actions in context.”

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3714 Thorley Winston Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:28:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3714 Novakant wrote: <blockquote> Gee, either you are totally ignorant or just lazy. I suggest you do a Google search on e.g.: </blockquote> I don’t know about anyone else, but I just do not find it persuasive when upon asking for evidence to back up someone’s claim, they respond with “you are totally ignorant or just lazy” or “do a Google search.” It seems to me that if I were trying to persuade someone that the United States installed a foreign dictatorship, I might have something more substantive to back up my claim. Let’s look the specific sites that Novakent provides: <blockquote> On November 13, 2000 16,000 secret US documents were declassified (against bitter resistance from the CIA of course) as part of the Clinton Administration’s special Chile Declassification Project. These documents prove the US involvement you deny and a selection can be read here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/ There is a concise account of the Cia involvement in Chile here http://www.lakota.clara.net/myths/usdstab.html </blockquote> Thanks for the links but I actually read some of documents on the first site and <b>none</b> of them back up the claim that the United States installed Pinochet. What they do point out is that the United States considered backing a coup in 1970 (which never happened), were concerned about a “loose rocket” in the form of their ambassador in Chile and seemed unable to come up with a way to remove Allende due to the own bureaucratic problems. If your goal was to suggest that these recently released documents qualify as a “smoking gun,” then I am afraid you’ve drawn a water pistol. BTW what is interesting is that the State Department at the time seemed inclined to believe (perhaps they just wanted to believe, I don’t know) that Pinochet was not aware of some of the atrocities going on under his regime. I don’t think anyone refutes that the United States wanted Allende gone and rightfully so – he was stealing the property of American citizens while moving his nation into the sphere of one of the most wicked regimes in history whom we were waging a Cold War against. I would not be surprised if we someday find film footage of Nixon and Kissinger high-fiving each other and doing the Iggie Shuffle upon learning that the Marxist government in Chile had fallen. Considering though that the Chilean government was ruining the economy (unless you have some theory to blame Nixon for 600% inflation), nationalizing private property, had half of its workforce on strike, was landing foreign troops and arming left-wing militias in order to supplant the military, and the legislature asked (85-40) for the military to step in - I think it’s fair to say that the people of Chile probably would have revolted regardless of whether or not the United States wanted them to. Novakant wrote:
Gee, either you are totally ignorant or just lazy. I suggest you do a Google search on e.g.:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I just do not find it persuasive when upon asking for evidence to back up someone’s claim, they respond with “you are totally ignorant or just lazy” or “do a Google search.” It seems to me that if I were trying to persuade someone that the United States installed a foreign dictatorship, I might have something more substantive to back up my claim. Let’s look the specific sites that Novakent provides:
On November 13, 2000 16,000 secret US documents were declassified (against bitter resistance from the CIA of course) as part of the Clinton Administration’s special Chile Declassification Project. These documents prove the US involvement you deny and a selection can be read here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/ There is a concise account of the Cia involvement in Chile here http://www.lakota.clara.net/myths/usdstab.html
Thanks for the links but I actually read some of documents on the first site and none of them back up the claim that the United States installed Pinochet. What they do point out is that the United States considered backing a coup in 1970 (which never happened), were concerned about a “loose rocket” in the form of their ambassador in Chile and seemed unable to come up with a way to remove Allende due to the own bureaucratic problems. If your goal was to suggest that these recently released documents qualify as a “smoking gun,” then I am afraid you’ve drawn a water pistol. BTW what is interesting is that the State Department at the time seemed inclined to believe (perhaps they just wanted to believe, I don’t know) that Pinochet was not aware of some of the atrocities going on under his regime. I don’t think anyone refutes that the United States wanted Allende gone and rightfully so – he was stealing the property of American citizens while moving his nation into the sphere of one of the most wicked regimes in history whom we were waging a Cold War against. I would not be surprised if we someday find film footage of Nixon and Kissinger high-fiving each other and doing the Iggie Shuffle upon learning that the Marxist government in Chile had fallen. Considering though that the Chilean government was ruining the economy (unless you have some theory to blame Nixon for 600% inflation), nationalizing private property, had half of its workforce on strike, was landing foreign troops and arming left-wing militias in order to supplant the military, and the legislature asked (85-40) for the military to step in – I think it’s fair to say that the people of Chile probably would have revolted regardless of whether or not the United States wanted them to.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3713 Thorley Winston Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:28:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3713 Chris wrote: <blockquote> So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn’t in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone, </blockquote> Actually I don’t think that is true, there have been <a>accounts</a> of atrocities committed by Allende’s government and members of his communist party. Unless you are so naïve enough to believe that when the Allende government sent troops to steal people’s farms, there wouldn’t be any bloodshed (see Zimbabwe). <blockquote> you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified? As you say “What’s not to understand?” </blockquote> It is not hypothetical at all (and the last name is “Winston” not “Wilson” – if you wish to use my name as an invective, at least get it right). Any government that expropriates private property is ultimately using violence and/or the threat of violence against people whether some wish to pretend otherwise or not. That the Chilean communists sent out their armed bands/militias is only using this violence in a more direct fashion. Moreover, they had invited the Cubans/Soviets to send in their troops to prop up the Allende regime. Either of these facts alone is enough to justify removing the government and frankly if some of the people who implemented this sort of treason/collaboration got lined up on the wall and shot afterwards, I’m not prepared to say it was unjustified. If someone had invited Soviet or Chi-com soldiers into the United States thirty years ago while trying to nationalize private property, I’d say that a coup would have been justified (even if the government were lawfully picked by the US House of Representatives) and killing some of the people afterwards who implemented and supported the policy would be understandable. That does not mean that done during the coup would be justified mind you (the torture allegations, if true, do not seem to have any legitimate purpose behind them) and I gladly condemn the imprisoning, torturing, and killing of any actually “innocent” people. Chris wrote:
So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn’t in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone,
Actually I don’t think that is true, there have been accounts of atrocities committed by Allende’s government and members of his communist party. Unless you are so naïve enough to believe that when the Allende government sent troops to steal people’s farms, there wouldn’t be any bloodshed (see Zimbabwe).
you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified? As you say “What’s not to understand?”
It is not hypothetical at all (and the last name is “Winston” not “Wilson” – if you wish to use my name as an invective, at least get it right). Any government that expropriates private property is ultimately using violence and/or the threat of violence against people whether some wish to pretend otherwise or not. That the Chilean communists sent out their armed bands/militias is only using this violence in a more direct fashion. Moreover, they had invited the Cubans/Soviets to send in their troops to prop up the Allende regime. Either of these facts alone is enough to justify removing the government and frankly if some of the people who implemented this sort of treason/collaboration got lined up on the wall and shot afterwards, I’m not prepared to say it was unjustified. If someone had invited Soviet or Chi-com soldiers into the United States thirty years ago while trying to nationalize private property, I’d say that a coup would have been justified (even if the government were lawfully picked by the US House of Representatives) and killing some of the people afterwards who implemented and supported the policy would be understandable. That does not mean that done during the coup would be justified mind you (the torture allegations, if true, do not seem to have any legitimate purpose behind them) and I gladly condemn the imprisoning, torturing, and killing of any actually “innocent” people.

]]> By: Brian O'Connell http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3712 Brian O'Connell Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:51:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3712 Chris: I do agree that coming up with the hypothetical, contrafactual results for the road not taken is usually going to be controversial. I don't dispute that there's plenty of room for argument on that score. Chris: I do agree that coming up with the hypothetical, contrafactual results for the road not taken is usually going to be controversial. I don’t dispute that there’s plenty of room for argument on that score.

]]> By: Brian O'Connell http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3711 Brian O'Connell Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:39:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3711 Novakant: Yes, toppling a democratically elected govt is a dangerous proposition. I hope I didn't seem to suggest that it wasn't. Returning to the theme of context, however, the policy of containment of the Soviet Union wasn't just a global stategy, it was a global strategy to defeat an evil empire. I'm sorry if that sounds dogmatic, but I believe that to be a fair assessment of the Cold War. The importance of our winning it equaled the importance of our defeating fascism in WWII. Chris: There's no doubt that consequentialism can lead one to make the wrong moral decision. But we don't live in a world where doing the 'right thing' always results in victory. Volumes have been written about this and I can't add anything to them. I'm not shilling for US actions in Chile. I just think that any assessment of our actions there which doesn't take the Cold War into account could never be a reasonable one. It's so easy now, when everyone knows that we won the Cold War by a mile, to look back at every battle in that war and come to the conclusion that we didn't need to go quite that far or be quite that extreme in order to win it. But the people who made the decisions at that time didn't have it so easy. Most of the discussion about Chile in these comments has been context-free, prior to Thorley's comment anyway. But if the context of 9/11/01 is important to consider, and I think it is, isn't the context of 9/11/73 important as well? Novakant: Yes, toppling a democratically elected govt is a dangerous proposition. I hope I didn’t seem to suggest that it wasn’t. Returning to the theme of context, however, the policy of containment of the Soviet Union wasn’t just a global stategy, it was a global strategy to defeat an evil empire. I’m sorry if that sounds dogmatic, but I believe that to be a fair assessment of the Cold War. The importance of our winning it equaled the importance of our defeating fascism in WWII. Chris: There’s no doubt that consequentialism can lead one to make the wrong moral decision. But we don’t live in a world where doing the ‘right thing’ always results in victory. Volumes have been written about this and I can’t add anything to them. I’m not shilling for US actions in Chile. I just think that any assessment of our actions there which doesn’t take the Cold War into account could never be a reasonable one. It’s so easy now, when everyone knows that we won the Cold War by a mile, to look back at every battle in that war and come to the conclusion that we didn’t need to go quite that far or be quite that extreme in order to win it. But the people who made the decisions at that time didn’t have it so easy. Most of the discussion about Chile in these comments has been context-free, prior to Thorley’s comment anyway. But if the context of 9/11/01 is important to consider, and I think it is, isn’t the context of 9/11/73 important as well?

]]> By: chris http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3710 chris Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:22:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3710 Brian, since I don't accept your consequentialist way of looking at things, I'm not much moved by your point (even if torturing and killing innocents would make the world better, it would be wrong). But, in any case, "hypothetical" is a fairly polite way to describe Thorley Wilson's projected future of the Allende regime. "Highly tendentious and speculative" would be more accurate, and a highly tendentious and speculative projection is not worth anything as a defence or apologia for grotesquely brutal acts. Brian, since I don’t accept your consequentialist way of looking at things, I’m not much moved by your point (even if torturing and killing innocents would make the world better, it would be wrong). But, in any case, “hypothetical” is a fairly polite way to describe Thorley Wilson’s projected future of the Allende regime. “Highly tendentious and speculative” would be more accurate, and a highly tendentious and speculative projection is not worth anything as a defence or apologia for grotesquely brutal acts.

]]> By: novakant http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3709 novakant Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:14:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3709 hmmm, your tale about the two "options" the US had at the time implies a dangerous proposition: That it is perfectly legitimate for a superpower to topple a democratically elected president of a much weaker country at any time if he doesn't fit into that power's global strategy. So it seems in your mind the Chileans could vote for whomever they wanted, if the US didn't like the outcome of the vote he would be out of office in no time. That's an interesting perception of democracy. hmmm, your tale about the two “options” the US had at the time implies a dangerous proposition: That it is perfectly legitimate for a superpower to topple a democratically elected president of a much weaker country at any time if he doesn’t fit into that power’s global strategy. So it seems in your mind the Chileans could vote for whomever they wanted, if the US didn’t like the outcome of the vote he would be out of office in no time. That’s an interesting perception of democracy.

]]> By: Brian O'Connell http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3708 Brian O'Connell Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:48:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3708 Chris: <i>So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn’t in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone, you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified?</i> That isn't a reasonable question. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the US had two options in 1973: allow the leftist Allende to continue what he was doing, or to support the right-wing Pinochet coup. We chose one of the options, and therefore the costs of choosing that option, in human lives and in other things, are known. We obviously didn't choose the other option, and because that option wasn't taken, we can never be sure about what the costs of choosing that option would have been. Your question to Thorley seems to assume that because the costs of the Allende option are all hypothetical, that they should be considered zero when compared to the costs of the Pinochet option. Of course, using this basis to judge past decisions will always result in the judgment that the decision was wrong because real actions always have real costs, whereas hypothetical actions have hypothetical costs, which your question implies shouldn't be considered. But at least we in 2003 have the luxury of comparing a known quantity to a hypothetical quantity. In 1973, they were comparing two hypothetical quantities. None of this is to say that we made the right or wrong decision back in 1973. I just think it's too simplistic to look at the results of the decision that was made and to conclude that we made the wrong decision without considering what the results of choosing the other option would have been. I think that's true even though, because of the nature of the universe, we can never know for sure exactly what those other results would have been. Chris: So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn’t in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone, you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified? That isn’t a reasonable question. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the US had two options in 1973: allow the leftist Allende to continue what he was doing, or to support the right-wing Pinochet coup. We chose one of the options, and therefore the costs of choosing that option, in human lives and in other things, are known. We obviously didn’t choose the other option, and because that option wasn’t taken, we can never be sure about what the costs of choosing that option would have been. Your question to Thorley seems to assume that because the costs of the Allende option are all hypothetical, that they should be considered zero when compared to the costs of the Pinochet option. Of course, using this basis to judge past decisions will always result in the judgment that the decision was wrong because real actions always have real costs, whereas hypothetical actions have hypothetical costs, which your question implies shouldn’t be considered. But at least we in 2003 have the luxury of comparing a known quantity to a hypothetical quantity. In 1973, they were comparing two hypothetical quantities. None of this is to say that we made the right or wrong decision back in 1973. I just think it’s too simplistic to look at the results of the decision that was made and to conclude that we made the wrong decision without considering what the results of choosing the other option would have been. I think that’s true even though, because of the nature of the universe, we can never know for sure exactly what those other results would have been.

]]> By: citizenk http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3707 citizenk Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:08:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3707 <i>I’m willing to state that I don’t know if he was as horrible as the Allende/Castro-apologists would have us believe though. There does seem to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not he approved the alleged tortures which I have never defended. However as far as coups go, the 1973 Junta was relatively bloodless and quick.</i> Sentiments like this are on par with denials of Nazi extermination, apologies for Southern slavery, and other statements which prove either irresponsible ignorance or moral turpitude beyond any acceptable bounds. It's interesting that such declarations are now usually bound up in some meaningless qualifiers. In any case, one cannot debate people who excuse torture or deny the open historical record. I’m willing to state that I don’t know if he was as horrible as the Allende/Castro-apologists would have us believe though. There does seem to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not he approved the alleged tortures which I have never defended. However as far as coups go, the 1973 Junta was relatively bloodless and quick. Sentiments like this are on par with denials of Nazi extermination, apologies for Southern slavery, and other statements which prove either irresponsible ignorance or moral turpitude beyond any acceptable bounds. It’s interesting that such declarations are now usually bound up in some meaningless qualifiers. In any case, one cannot debate people who excuse torture or deny the open historical record.

]]> By: novakant http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3706 novakant Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:27:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3706 "Gee the funny thing is that I asked in my original post how it was the United States installed Pinochet as the dictator in Chile and so far no one has come up with an answer. It seems to me that the coup was pretty much an internal thing [...]." Gee, either you are totally ignorant or just lazy. I suggest you do a Google search on e.g.: kissinger chile "general schneider" cia ITT chile allende chile "us involvement" pinochet "us involvement" You'll find tons of proof from all kinds of sources for the US' efforts to destabilize Chile, the CIA plot to kill Schneider and force Allende out of office to install Pinochet. On November 13, 2000 16,000 secret US documents were declassified (against bitter resistance from the CIA of course)as part of the Clinton Administration’s special Chile Declassification Project. These documents prove the US involvement you deny and a selection can be read here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/ There is a concise account of the Cia involvement in Chile here http://www.lakota.clara.net/myths/usdstab.html Colin Powell said about the matter: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we’re proud of.” Considering that this statement is coming from a diplomat it is a pretty damning verdict. Maybe you are just misinformed, but from the tone of your arguments it seems you would rather prefer not to know the unpleasant truth, in any case above is the "answer" to your "question". “Gee the funny thing is that I asked in my original post how it was the United States installed Pinochet as the dictator in Chile and so far no one has come up with an answer. It seems to me that the coup was pretty much an internal thing [...].” Gee, either you are totally ignorant or just lazy. I suggest you do a Google search on e.g.: kissinger chile “general schneider” cia ITT chile allende chile “us involvement” pinochet “us involvement” You’ll find tons of proof from all kinds of sources for the US’ efforts to destabilize Chile, the CIA plot to kill Schneider and force Allende out of office to install Pinochet. On November 13, 2000 16,000 secret US documents were declassified (against bitter resistance from the CIA of course)as part of the Clinton Administration’s special Chile Declassification Project. These documents prove the US involvement you deny and a selection can be read here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/ There is a concise account of the Cia involvement in Chile here http://www.lakota.clara.net/myths/usdstab.html Colin Powell said about the matter: “With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we’re proud of.” Considering that this statement is coming from a diplomat it is a pretty damning verdict. Maybe you are just misinformed, but from the tone of your arguments it seems you would rather prefer not to know the unpleasant truth, in any case above is the “answer” to your “question”.

]]> By: Elias http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3705 Elias Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:46:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3705 "mw" writes: "Not as tiresome as Elias, however, who insists that 'US foreign policy creates the vast reservoir of hatred and revenge that resulted in 9/11'...Of course, there's nothing wrong with theorizing cause and effect..." Of course, positing cause and effect is precisely what the intellectual class does every day: "Islamic fundamentalism causes childhood indoctrination which causes hatred for the West which causes extremism in Saudi Arabia which creates bin Laden" and so on... Or, "The US invasion of Iraq will cause 'shock and awe' which will cause the Iraqis to lay down their arms which will cause democracy to flourish througout the region which will cause love and admiration for the United States througout the Islamic world..." Cause and Effect is perfectly fine in these cases because it functions to support US ideology. But when it comes to understanding the hatred others feel for the US, there's no explaining that - no "Cause and Effect" there, no sir. To do so only makes you "indecent." So there's nothing really new here. Apologists for US crimes like "mw" are a dime a dozen, and I can't really give them much credibility... “mw” writes: “Not as tiresome as Elias, however, who insists that ‘US foreign policy creates the vast reservoir of hatred and revenge that resulted in 9/11’…Of course, there’s nothing wrong with theorizing cause and effect…” Of course, positing cause and effect is precisely what the intellectual class does every day: “Islamic fundamentalism causes childhood indoctrination which causes hatred for the West which causes extremism in Saudi Arabia which creates bin Laden” and so on… Or, “The US invasion of Iraq will cause ‘shock and awe’ which will cause the Iraqis to lay down their arms which will cause democracy to flourish througout the region which will cause love and admiration for the United States througout the Islamic world…” Cause and Effect is perfectly fine in these cases because it functions to support US ideology. But when it comes to understanding the hatred others feel for the US, there’s no explaining that – no “Cause and Effect” there, no sir. To do so only makes you “indecent.” So there’s nothing really new here. Apologists for US crimes like “mw” are a dime a dozen, and I can’t really give them much credibility…

]]> By: Chris http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3704 Chris Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:35:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3704 So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn't in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone, you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified? As you say "What's not to understand?" So, Thorley, even though the social-democratic Allende government didn’t in the real, actual world murder or torture anyone, you feel on safe ground in asserting that since in purely hypothethical ideology-driven Thorley-Wilson-world they would have got down to mass murder in the end, the Pinochet coup was justified? As you say “What’s not to understand?”

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3703 Thorley Winston Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:56:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3703 Chris wrote: <blockquote> People who defend Pinochet - as Thorley seems to do - are clearly prepared to countenance the deliberate murder (and torture) of innocents for political ends. </blockquote> Chris’ smear aside, no where did I countenance the deliberate murder or torture of innocents for political ends. What I did say is that a Soviet-backed Allende regime or a long and draw out civil war would have probably been much worse. Moreover, I doubt that my comparing “Senator for Life” Pinochet to something out of a bad 1960s spy show amounts to defending him. However, I am pretty solid and defensible ground for saying he wasn’t as bad as Allende (who wasn’t the peaceful democrat his apologists love to imagine) and his gang or a long and bloody civil war. The thing people forget is that 1973 Chile was a powder keg with half of the nation’s workforce on strike, 600 percent inflation, a government (which never had more than 36% popular support) nationalizing private industries right and left, and who was inviting their enemies to bring in foreign troops and to arm left-wing militias to keep the government in power. No wonder the Congress of Deputies asked the military to overthrow the government, it was probably the only thing which saved the country. <blockquote> As such, they cannot, consistently, say what needs to be said about 9/11. And any praise that such people direct towards those who do say what needs to be said, cannot be taken seriously. </blockquote> Actually I have no problem with saying what needs to be said about either 9/11. In 2003 the practitioners of an evil ideology murdered 3,000 innocents and inspired a nation to wage a war on that ideology which has thus far resulted in the liberation of two nations whose fate while uncertain is at least more in the hands of the people of those nations. In 1973, a popular Junta (backed by the workers, the legislative branch of the government, and the military) was enacted against practitioners of an even more evil ideology who were destroying their country and trying to turn it over to the worst dictatorship in the history of humankind. During the Junta, about 3,000 people were killed. Some of them were killed in battle while defending the Marxist regime and some were captured and killed or tortured. Of the latter group, some may have been innocents who were murdered by the more unsavory parts of the Junta that if true is inexcusable. Even so, it pales in comparison to what has happened in other nations controlled by the practitioners of that ideology and the deaths far fewer than most similar civil wars. Moreover, unlike Soviet-backed regimes, the members of the Junta set a timetable for returning control of the nation back to its people and followed it. What’s not to understand? Chris wrote:
People who defend Pinochet – as Thorley seems to do – are clearly prepared to countenance the deliberate murder (and torture) of innocents for political ends.
Chris’ smear aside, no where did I countenance the deliberate murder or torture of innocents for political ends. What I did say is that a Soviet-backed Allende regime or a long and draw out civil war would have probably been much worse. Moreover, I doubt that my comparing “Senator for Life” Pinochet to something out of a bad 1960s spy show amounts to defending him. However, I am pretty solid and defensible ground for saying he wasn’t as bad as Allende (who wasn’t the peaceful democrat his apologists love to imagine) and his gang or a long and bloody civil war. The thing people forget is that 1973 Chile was a powder keg with half of the nation’s workforce on strike, 600 percent inflation, a government (which never had more than 36% popular support) nationalizing private industries right and left, and who was inviting their enemies to bring in foreign troops and to arm left-wing militias to keep the government in power. No wonder the Congress of Deputies asked the military to overthrow the government, it was probably the only thing which saved the country.
As such, they cannot, consistently, say what needs to be said about 9/11. And any praise that such people direct towards those who do say what needs to be said, cannot be taken seriously.
Actually I have no problem with saying what needs to be said about either 9/11. In 2003 the practitioners of an evil ideology murdered 3,000 innocents and inspired a nation to wage a war on that ideology which has thus far resulted in the liberation of two nations whose fate while uncertain is at least more in the hands of the people of those nations. In 1973, a popular Junta (backed by the workers, the legislative branch of the government, and the military) was enacted against practitioners of an even more evil ideology who were destroying their country and trying to turn it over to the worst dictatorship in the history of humankind. During the Junta, about 3,000 people were killed. Some of them were killed in battle while defending the Marxist regime and some were captured and killed or tortured. Of the latter group, some may have been innocents who were murdered by the more unsavory parts of the Junta that if true is inexcusable. Even so, it pales in comparison to what has happened in other nations controlled by the practitioners of that ideology and the deaths far fewer than most similar civil wars. Moreover, unlike Soviet-backed regimes, the members of the Junta set a timetable for returning control of the nation back to its people and followed it. What’s not to understand?

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/two-septembers/comment-page-2/#comment-3702 Thorley Winston Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:43:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=267#comment-3702 Citizenk wrote: <blockquote> People like our commentator Thorley Winston can write that Pinochet was probably not a great guy. Spot on. I think that’s exactly what Speer said about his old boss </blockquote> I’m willing to state that I don’t know if he was as horrible as the Allende/Castro-apologists would have us believe though. There does seem to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not he approved the alleged tortures which I have never defended. However as far as coups go, the 1973 Junta was relatively bloodless and quick. Moreover considering the experience that Kerensky had with the Bolsheviks overthrew his government, I’m hard-pressed to put too much blame on Pinochet for taking harder tactics against the Marxist government and its supporters. I won’t argue in favor of torture though which does not appear to have any justification especially since so many of those victims appear to have had nothing to do with supporting the Marxist regime and would therefore qualify as innocent. However in light of the possibility of long and bloody civil war or worse, a Soviet-backed regime in Chile, I’d say it was certainly the lesser of three evils. <blockquote> The US Government, acting against the interests of most of us in the world, has participated in horrible, horrible, crimes. </blockquote> Gee the funny thing is that I asked in my original post how it was the United States installed Pinochet as the dictator in Chile and so far <b>no one has come up with an answer</b>. It seems to me that the coup was pretty much an internal thing and would have happened regardless of whether or not the United States had an interest in preventing Chile from being delivered into the hands of one of the most evil ideologies in the history of human kind. The Big Bad CIA involvement (e.g. a minor trucking strike, whoopee) in the coup’s success seems pretty negligible especially in light of the Cuban/Soviet’s sending 15,000 troops and weapons. So if you’re going to claim the United States is at fault for the 1973 Junta (which was probably not a bad thing compared to the two most likely alternatives), where’s your evidence? Citizenk wrote:
People like our commentator Thorley Winston can write that Pinochet was probably not a great guy. Spot on. I think that’s exactly what Speer said about his old boss
I’m willing to state that I don’t know if he was as horrible as the Allende/Castro-apologists would have us believe though. There does seem to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not he approved the alleged tortures which I have never defended. However as far as coups go, the 1973 Junta was relatively bloodless and quick. Moreover considering the experience that Kerensky had with the Bolsheviks overthrew his government, I’m hard-pressed to put too much blame on Pinochet for taking harder tactics against the Marxist government and its supporters. I won’t argue in favor of torture though which does not appear to have any justification especially since so many of those victims appear to have had nothing to do with supporting the Marxist regime and would therefore qualify as innocent. However in light of the possibility of long and bloody civil war or worse, a Soviet-backed regime in Chile, I’d say it was certainly the lesser of three evils.
The US Government, acting against the interests of most of us in the world, has participated in horrible, horrible, crimes.
Gee the funny thing is that I asked in my original post how it was the United States installed Pinochet as the dictator in Chile and so far no one has come up with an answer. It seems to me that the coup was pretty much an internal thing and would have happened regardless of whether or not the United States had an interest in preventing Chile from being delivered into the hands of one of the most evil ideologies in the history of human kind. The Big Bad CIA involvement (e.g. a minor trucking strike, whoopee) in the coup’s success seems pretty negligible especially in light of the Cuban/Soviet’s sending 15,000 troops and weapons. So if you’re going to claim the United States is at fault for the 1973 Junta (which was probably not a bad thing compared to the two most likely alternatives), where’s your evidence?

]]>