 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Somehow I feel that Chilean President's position about the coup and the US involvment is not representative of the majority of Chileans.
Am I wrong?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The US was behind the coup, Chileans carried it out. Or do you think that Kissinger's declaration that we were going to make your "economy scream" was just talk? Despite the declaration of the State Department contra Powell, much of the role of the US government in the Pinochet coup was uncovered by the US Senate in 1975. |
More communist lies.
Che, the document you cite, the Church Report, states the exact opposite of what you just said.
True, we provided subtantial support for political opposition to Allende, we did not, however, instigate the coup. There appears to be no evidence that we even knew about it beforehand.
We cut off economic aid in response to Allende's nationalization of the US owned copper industry not only without compensation, but with demands that they pay Chile for so-called "excess profits."
In the year leading up to the 1973 coup, there were massive strikes and protests across the country. The Church report does not indicate the reasons for these protests. I think we have heard here about some of the reasons, but not all. But what is clear was that Allende's actions were causing Chile to descend into chaos and enconomic depression. The military acted to save the country from complete ruin.
Even so, immediately after the coup, we insisted that Chile folloow the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. When the OAS issued its report on human rights abuses, President Ford immediately cut off military aid.
"October 25 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the O.A.S. reports "grievous violations of human rights" in Chile.
December 30 U.S. military aid is cut off."
The Church Report does not confirm communist propaganda on Chile.
Last edited by Ned on 19-04-2003 at 05:59
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dr. Nick
|
 |
Mola mazo!
Oct 2000 time: 01:27
|
|
Jesus christ, Chilean, you DO sound like a Chilean born and raised in a Pinochetean education system.
He killed himself with the AK-47 that Castro gave him when he refused to be embarked to Cuba and he was screwing his secretary and then he was a godless communist and, and, and he was going to take away all our civil liberties and rights. What next? Allende was the Antichrist, and the Pope didn't have enough time to excommunicate him? I'm not going to contest fact, because what I've read, albeit from various sources, is not much, but it's overly contradicting with all you've said so far. I'm not going to, therefore, contest facts, but you sound like you're spewing propaganda, not as if you're arguing.
quote: 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. |
Europe (particularly Britain) still had a lot to do in the River Plate, as well as in Chile. Commercial and industrial interests primarily, which were overtaken by the US after WW2.
quote: 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. |
The criticism against the US is that it gave its green light to the dictators by being passive. Of all the Presidents, only Jimmy Carter put pressure on the Latin American dictatorships on the human rights issues. It's the hypocrisy of American foreign policy that is criticised, as the US is seen as a passive (though sometimes active) supporter of the regimes because they didn't oppose them enough. The US is viewed as having betrayed the democratic ideals it promulgued by not opposing the juntas. The lack of a strong US condemnation (particularly hypocritical in lieu of their criticism of Cuba but lack of criticism for the right wing dictators) screwed up the image of the US.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chilean President™
|
 |
Viña del Mar, CHILE
Feb 2001 time: 00:27
|
|
Again, and for the last time, I'm not defending Pinochet (God help me if I do) or saying that Allende was the antichrist (Por favor Elawrence!!), I'm just giving the facts.
Allende had crappy people on his staff.
A group of them didn't want a democratic government and were thinking of doing some kind of revolution (in a smaller scale than the Cuban)
Almost 80% of the Chileans in 1973 didn't like the government and supported the decision of the Congress to ask the resignation of Allende.
And last, but not least, the Pinochet governmet had between 1973 and 78 (year of the crisis with Argentina) a good evaluation (which of course went down when the torture and human right crimes were knew by the people .. the 'average Chilean' if you prefer).
These are facts as a fact is that the Pinochet government murder 3.000 Chileans, had huge levels of corruption and create an image of Chile that is hard to erase... but we all are doing our best.
I know is hard for many people to see a 'grey point', but is also hard for us too see the conflict as a 'black & white' or 'good & wrong' side, 'cause those side don't exist, both were wrong.. they were extremist positions that divide our society like in the Civil War of 1891.
The difrences between the point of views of the Chileans are:
- Besides the government had problems to do a good job, that doesn't mean that a military coup or any kind of coup is the answer.
- The government had a chance to do the right things but they didn't plus the congress ask for the resgnation of the President, so any kind of coup was welcome.
I suppot the second option because I think that the way it was the path was leading to a Civil War, and thats my opinion.
I will repeat something that Chegitz said before and it is the truth:
quote: There's also a large segment of society who just want the whole thing to be over and an end to the troubles. |
Chile faced the demons of the past. Members of the armed left-wings groups and generals of the Pinochet administration are now in jail fulfilling sentence by crimes they committed in the 70's and 80's.
Most of the Chileans see this as an historic fact, far away from all of us. We are now facing the future together, people from the left, the right, above, down,.....
Our history hurts us, not because some had mistaken but because we all were mistaken. And the division that sometimes made us look like two nations in one, thanks to God no longer exists in spite of what foreigners think of us.
Last edited by Chilean President™ on 20-04-2003 at 07:19
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|