The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When idealists give way to ideology > Comments

When idealists give way to ideology : Comments

By Mal Fletcher, published 18/9/2015

Idealists in the population will often project their visions of a better future onto ideologues, whose intransigence on issues is often mistaken for a sign of prescience.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Here is a Youtube video that includes audio of Nixon which shows his involvement in the Chilean coup.

"Let's turn to a recording of President Richard Nixon speaking in a March 1972 phone call, acknowledging he had given instructions to "to do anything short of a Dominican type action to keep the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende from assuming office ... in this clip you hear President Nixon telling his Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler he had given orders to undermine Chilean democracy to the US Ambassador, but "he had failed, he should have kept Allende from getting in"

The clip also shows Nixon mentioning ITT/IT&T the phone company that was a player in the coup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Ki6nWSeVQ

The video later refers to a CIA assessment that Allende was no Soviet pawn, he was his own man, "he would be hard for the Commmunists Party and for Moscow to control". There was also disagreement from CIA and other analysts about the US getting involved in overthrowing a government that was no threat to the US's national security. But this advice was ignored by Nixon and Kissinger.
Posted by BJelly, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 12:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Holy heck, jeeze I love the internet!
Just found some of the documents related to the coup in Chile - its strange seeing actual notes and analysis from this time discussing the pros and cons of the US supporting the military overthrow of an elected government - but hey, business is business, after all, the world is a business Mr Beale.

Document written by CIA chief Richard Helms
"Meeting with the President on Chile at 1525 15 Sept 1970, Present:John Mitchell, Henry Kissinger" ... game plan - make the economy scream. (have to scroll to second page to get typed notes - the first page is difficult to read)
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%203%20-%20Handwritten%20instructions%20from%20Nixon%20Sep%2015%201970.pdf

CIA (Sept 1970) analysis stating pros and cons of being involved in coup.
"...What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets..." Conclusion was that a coup was not recommended, as Chilean Military wouldn't have supported it - that's where the assassination of Gen Schneider (head of military) in Oct 1970 probably helped move things along. Pinchet became head of military in 1973 - bingo bango.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%202%20-%20Vaky%20to%20Kissinger%20Sep%2014%201970%20-%20Chile--40%20Committee%20Meeting%20Monday%20-%20Sep%2014.pdf

NSC Meeting with President Nixon 2 days after coup - they discuss whether to send someone to funeral (decide against it) Decide not to be too hasty recognizing Pinochet government - they will encourage some other Latin state to do it first - as it will look better. Australia gets a mention when discussing aid - they don't want to look like they are the only ones giving assistance - they suggest Australia and Argentina would be good mulitlateral partners, but the Chileans would be told who was really behind this aid.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%206%20-%20Sep%2013%201973%20-%20WSAG%20of%20Sep%2012%20-%20DNSA%20Chile%2000795%20.pdf

Phone Call Kissinger to Nixon 16/9/73 (5 days after coup)
Kissinger:I mean instead of celebrating - in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes
Nixon:Well we didn't - as you know - our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it, I mean we helped them....
Nixon: "Well main thing was. Let's forget the pro-Communist. It was anti-American all the way."
Heaven forbid a country puts its own interests first!
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB437/docs/Doc%207%20-%20Kissinger-Nixon%20telcon%20Sep%2016%201973.pdf
Posted by BJelly, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 4:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can't blame Nixon, he was brain washed into fascist terrorism.
The democratic North government of a quiet coastal island off France was violently assaulted in 1775 by armed militias who destroyed artillery and self-defence boats of the London community hymn singers.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 4:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a result the US plunged into a full blown crisis under the Chilean iron fist and naval dominance.
War of the Pacific

"The United States tried to bring an early end to the War of the Pacific, mainly because of US business interests in Peru, but also because its leaders worried that the United Kingdom would take economic control of the region through Chile. Peace negotiations failed when a stipulation required Chile to return the conquered lands. Chileans suspected the new US initiative was tainted with a pro-Peruvian bias. As a result, relations between Chile and the United States took a turn for the worse. Chile instead asked that the United States remain neutral, and the United States, unable to match Chilean naval power, backed down.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 4:54:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I have pointed out previously, BJelly, "fascists" and "communists" are practically the same thing. They are no more different than Sunnis and Shiites, who both advocate Islam, and hate each other. In what way was Hitler's Germany essentially different to Stalin's USSR?

Of course it is correct to kill people who want to enslave you, especially ones who demand that you adhere to a social/ political/ economic/system which has already proven to be a catastrophic failure. And especially when the people who advocate such nonsense are themselves noted for mass murdering people who oppose them.

People will take up arms against any regime that they think is contrary to their collective interest. It is in the interests of the most devout Muslims to follow the teachings of their religion, and use force and terrorism to spread their religion. If they do that, they get to go to heaven, meet their God personally, live forever in "the gardens of paradise", and screw 72 "high breasted, dark eyed houris" into eternity.

Now, I do not want my society to become Muslim (or National Socialist, or International Socialist, either). So I am prepared to kill Muslims who want to kill me if I do not accept their stupid religion, with it's accompanying economic and social dysfunction. That does not mean that I am going to run of down the street and kill Muslims, right now. Because most people in my society do not recognise Muslims as a threat to their survival right now. It is not socially unacceptable at the moment.

But a time will come when western people will see it as socially acceptable, because it be the matter of "who runs this place"? "Us or them"? The Serbs did it, and according to socialist social theories, there can be no difference between Serbs and everybody else on planet Earth. When that happens, killing Muslims will be as socially acceptable as killing German Nazis, Japanese imperialists, Al Qaida terrorists, Communists, or Boko Haram nutcases. It is a matter of recognising who are your enemies, and butchering them in a civilised way.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 4:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi LEGO, Most people will agree that self-defense is a defense to kill another. But LEGO, you support the Pinochet regime - it killed innocent civilians like students, doctors, farmers and musicians. How were these people a threat to a military junta that was backed by one of the 2 superpowers of the time?
It is one thing to kill in self-defense, but Pinochet didn't just kill and torture soldiers and armed militants, but ordinary people like housewives. How is that defensible?

I agree that Communism and Fascism are as bad as each other. Both want to control people and resources, and both will kill to do it.

Hi Nick - love your work! It's a bit random, but I kinda like that.
Posted by BJelly, Wednesday, 23 September 2015 8:10:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy