Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[NWO Sentryman]

Stokes,

show evidence that the US blockades Cuba on purely economic reasons. The US supported dictators not because of corporations, but because of the fact that they were not hostile to the US, an example of realpolitik. Cuba was a dictatorship that was hostile to the US and actively threatening nuclear annihilation, hence the sanctions. A Paladin's foreign policy (tm) would see the world sent back 500 years due to the nuclear fallout. What mattered to the US at the time was "are they hostile?", and is still a major factor in US policy.

And you do not give away that you are drawing down in one field, lest the USSR try to take advantage of it. The cold war was a completely different era from 2011 when at times both sides were a hair's breadth away from the apocalypse, and both sides had to tiptoe on thin ice in bare feet. Oh wait, because one side has a hammer and sickle, everything it ever does is justified or is merely a reaction to the evil!corporate!Amerika.

And it wasn't a balancing of power because the USSR had far more than 12 active nukes (and they were state of the art, compared to the obsolete Jupiter that was being gradually decommissioned in Turkey) on Cuba that could hit as far as San Francisco

 

[stokes234]

The 1970 coup attempt was terminated and written off as a failure by the CIA. Besides, the Church committee had encounterd NO evidence whatsoever that the CIA was behind the 1973 coup, otherwise they would have stated as such.

It doesn't matter than the 1970 coup was written off, because as I have shown, it was continuing policy in 1973 that Allende be overthrown by a coup. And while the Church report, written by americans, did say that there was no direct evidence of cia involvement in the coup, that's not what i'm actually claiming. They did say, however,

"There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."

Further to that, the CIA did know that the coup would occur, and gave no warning to Allende's government. From a CIA document - "CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place."

As for the chicago boys and economic plans, they came AFTER the 1973 coup, not before it.

No, they came before it. The university of chicago set up links with the catholic university in santiago decades before. According to a report from the university of chicago to the state department in 1957, "the central purpose of the project was to train a generation of students who would become the intellectual leaders in economic affairs in chile." Letelier also claims as I quoted that the Chicago Boys offered their assistance to the Junta, and until his assassination he described the chilean coup as a collaberation between the military and the economists.

Furthermore, the idea that the Chicago Boys came later doesn't collaberate very well with the fact that the 500-page economic plan for post-coup chile was handed to the army generals "before midday wednesday, september 12" (the coup took place on september 11).

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Wow, this is tinfoil territory.

First off, the CIA did not instigate the coup. There has been no evidence of such, and would have been uncovered by the church committee, who were livid with the CIA and wanted to find out the truth behind foreign events. If they could find out about GLADIO, they would have found evidence that the CIA implemented the coup. The CIA did not. The Church Committee wasn't a whitewash, especially as they had imposed restrictions on CIA activities.

Was the CIA under any obligation to tell Allende that there was a coup being plotted, or was it too late to act against it?

Your understanding of US foreign policy is like that someone who has only ever played the game HAZE and assumes that it gives a 100% accurate depiction of US policy, when there are far more shades of grey in real life.

 

[stokes234]

Stokes,

show evidence that the US blockades Cuba on purely economic reasons. The US supported dictators not because of corporations, but because of the fact that they were not hostile to the US, an example of realpolitik. Cuba was a dictatorship that was hostile to the US and actively threatening nuclear annihilation, hence the sanctions. A Paladin's foreign policy (tm) would see the world sent back 500 years due to the nuclear fallout. What mattered to the US at the time was "are they hostile?", and is still a major factor in US policy.

I notice you're not actually answering any of my questions, while I am directly addressing yours.

I've shown evidence that cuba is blockaded purely on economic grounds, by listing several other countries with worse human rights violations that are not blockaded. If believe Cuba is actively hostile towards the US, could you provide a list of hostile actions committed by cuba towards the US? Remember that having weapons pointed towards your enemy is only a hostile action if your enemy didn't already have weapons pointed at you. And while the Cuban mantra might be hostility, it has never threatened invasion, and this mantra is understandable when you remember that the US has funded an invasion of Cuba and has attempted to assassinate its leader. Diplomacy would easily end this hostility, if the US was willing.

Also, the repeated use of the term "Paladin" is making you look silly.

And you do not give away that you are drawing down in one field, lest the USSR try to take advantage of it.

So, again, why does it matter that the US was planning to dismantle the Turkish sites if the USSR had no knowledge of this? As far as they were concerned, they were rebalancing power.

The cold war was a completely different era from 2011 when at times both sides were a hair's breadth away from the apocalypse, and both sides had to tiptoe on thin ice in bare feet. Oh wait, because one side has a hammer and sickle, everything it ever does is justified or is merely a reaction to the evil!corporate!Amerika.

Who exactly are you arguing with? Do you think i'm a communist? Drop the strawmen, and actually address my points.

And it wasn't a balancing of power because the USSR had far more than 12 active nukes (and they were state of the art, compared to the obsolete Jupiter that was being gradually decommissioned in Turkey) on Cuba that could hit as far as San Francisco

Yes it was a balancing of power, because the remaining parts of russia that would have survived would have been less powerful than, say, Somalia in terms of economic strength. Have you ever looked up eastern russia? Nobody lives there, it's a wasteland.

But if you're really going to nitpick and say that the Turkish missiles and the Italian missiles (that you seem to be ignoring) weren't enough, then factor in the 57 nukes from Project Emily that were readied to be able to hit moscow from the UK during the cuban missile crisis.

 

[stokes234]

Wow, this is tinfoil territory.

First off, the CIA did not instigate the coup. There has been no evidence of such, and would have been uncovered by the church committee, who were livid with the CIA and wanted to find out the truth behind foreign events. If they could find out about GLADIO, they would have found evidence that the CIA implemented the coup. The CIA did not. The Church Committee wasn't a whitewash, especially as they had imposed restrictions on CIA activities.

Firstly, I didn't claim the CIA instigated the coup. If you had actually read any of my posts, you would have noticed that I have emphatically stated this several times. Secondly, I didn't claim it was a whitewash, nor do I consider tinfoil hats to be fashionable attire. I simply implied that having americans investigate whether americans had committed any wrongdoing in another country, at a time when america was stressing patriotism, may not have been the most unbiased decision of all time.

Was the CIA under any obligation to tell Allende that there was a coup being plotted, or was it too late to act against it?

Are you asking me, was america under any obligation to lift its finger to make a single phone call in order to prevent the overthrow of a democratically elected government by a dictator who had thousands of people killed, tens of thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands arrested? Well, some philosophers would tell you that yes, they were, and i'm sure others would tell you they weren't. I've always been of the opinion that if you can easily prevent or try to prevent serious harm to others, you are obliged to.

Your understanding of US foreign policy is like that someone who has only ever played the game HAZE and assumes that it gives a 100% accurate depiction of US policy, when there are far more shades of grey in real life.

Ah, more video game references. I'll say this now, because you appear to be deliberately mischaracterising me to imply that I only think in black and white terms - I do not only think in black and white terms. I am perfectly aware of the different shades of grey in this argument, but believe that the US actively creating the climate for a coup and making it their policy to have a coup occur in a country to overthrow a democratically elected President and have him replaced with a brutal military dictator cannot be excused with the "shades of grey" defence.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Hostility is the main factor in relations, not corporations, and that has always been the case. Suharto was not hostile to the US, or its allies, so they were more willing to overlook its atrocities. The same with the Brazilian Juntas. Basically, for the US, as long as they weren't hostile, they could be tolerated. Nothing to do with the evil!corporations that the left caricature as ecovillains from Captain Planet

Diplomacy is not a magic wand Stokes, and the Cubans were in league with the USSR, which made them a more immediate issue than Indonesia.

As well as that, Cuba, Chile and Indonesia were completely different contexts. cuba was a more direct issue for the US than Indonesia, as well as the Cuban exile lobby being a key part of US politics in the Southeast.

Well, you were excusing the Soviet placing nukes in Cuba as "balance of power".

And show evidence that Poject Emily was intended to be a first strike measure.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Stokes,

Who should investigate police corruption? Most certainly not the ombudsman because they are part of the police.

And if the plotters learned of the warning that Allende had been given, there was the risk of open civil war, and that was NOT in the US's best interests.

And is there any evidence that the US wanted a coup in 1973?

 

[stokes234]

Hostility is the main factor in relations, not corporations, and that has always been the case. Suharto was not hostile to the US, or its allies, so they were more willing to overlook its atrocities. The same with the Brazilian Juntas. Basically, for the US, as long as they weren't hostile, they could be tolerated. Nothing to do with the evil!corporations that the left caricature as ecovillains from Captain Planet

Diplomacy is not a magic wand Stokes, and the Cubans were in league with the USSR, which made them a more immediate issue than Indonesia.

Yes, the Cubans were in league with the USSR. Russia was most of the USSR, and they don't have a trade embargo. How does this justify maintaining the embargo over twenty years after the USSR has fallen?

Also, feel free to quote the point at which I even mentioned corporations in this thread.

As well as that, Cuba, Chile and Indonesia were completely different contexts. cuba was a more direct issue for the US than Indonesia, as well as the Cuban exile lobby being a key part of US politics in the Southeast.

Different contexts? How is this an excuse? I don't see it.

Well, you were excusing the Soviet placing nukes in Cuba as "balance of power".

I still am.

And show evidence that Poject Emily was intended to be a first strike measure.

Why do I have to? Can you show evidence that the cuban missile bases were intended as a first strike measure?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The fact that they were a damoclesian knife over America's head as well as the diplomatic furore over their deployment (khrushchev deployed them with the full intent of testing the president's patience) is evidence enough that they were a first strike measure, while Emily was preparing for a response. Khrushchev knew full well that the US would try to intercept the missiles, and the USSR would thus go for broke.

And it's naive to assume that cosy relations between the US and scumbags are down to shared economic policy. It's also due to the geographical and historical context between the US and said scumbags (frex, being on good terms with Mubarak ensured a vital stepping stone to peace in the Middle East, while the Shah was supported because of Iran's proximity to the USSR).

 

[stokes234]

Stokes,

Who should investigate police corruption? Most certainly not the ombudsman because they are part of the police.

That's different. There is no patriotic aspect, as only one country is involved. I'm not claiming that the Church commission was biased, i'm simply pointing out that they aren't going to be the least biased option during a time where patriotism was being stressed, such as during the cold war. But i'm not pressing this issue here.

And if the plotters learned of the warning that Allende had been given, there was the risk of open civil war, and that was NOT in the US's best interests.

What? That's like saying you shouldn't warn your neighbour that he's about the be murdered, because that might cause a fight, and they might trample all over your Dahlias.

And is there any evidence that the US wanted a coup in 1973?

Yes, yes there is.

"Operating guidance issued to CIA operatives in Chile on 16 October 1970 explicitly stated US aims:

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date""

They also continued funding the NAM, who as I showed earlier, made it their goal that a coup be instigated, and funded the El Mercurio, a newspaper that published continuous anti-Allende propaganda. According to the Church report that you believe backs up your position, "A CIA project renewal memorandum concluded that El Mercurio and other media outlets supported by the Agency had played an important role in setting the stage for the September 11, 1973, military coup which overthrew Allende."

 

[stokes234]

The fact that they were a damoclesian knife over America's head as well as the diplomatic furore over their deployment (khrushchev deployed them with the full intent of testing the president's patience) is evidence enough that they were a first strike measure, while Emily was preparing for a response. Khrushchev knew full well that the US would try to intercept the missiles, and the USSR would thus go for broke.

No, this just doesn't follow. Why is it aggressive for the USSR to position missiles capable of attacking the US, but not aggressive for the US to position missiles capable of attacking the USSR? If Project Emily came before the Cuban missiles, by what criteria do you determine that Project Emily was a defensive measure?

And it's naive to assume that cosy relations between the US and scumbags are down to shared economic policy. It's also due to the geographical and historical context between the US and said scumbags (frex, being on good terms with Mubarak ensured a vital stepping stone to peace in the Middle East, while the Shah was supported because of Iran's proximity to the USSR).

Obviously there are other reasons for intervention, but the only outlying explanation for the embargo against cuba is its internal economic policy. There is no other factor present in cuba that is not ignored elsewhere in the world.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The US was hardly as patrotic in the early 1970s as it is today, in light of the Vietnam blues and the Watergate scandal, which destroyed a lot of public confidence in the government.

If the Plotters get wind of Allende getting news of their plot, they'll go ahead like there's no tomorrow, and potentially cause a civil war with quite a few more deaths than under Pinochet. That was something the US didn't want.

And the report stated that activities promoting a coup peaked in 1970, and you have not proven with the report extract that it was CIA policy to instigate a coup in 1973.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

No, this just doesn't follow. Why is it aggressive for the USSR to position missiles capable of attacking the US, but not aggressive for the US to position missiles capable of attacking the USSR? If Project Emily came before the Cuban missiles, by what criteria do you determine that Project Emily was a defensive measure?

The USSR directly sought to provoke the US by placing the missiles on Cuba, while the missiles in Italy and Turkey were part of NATO operations. Completely different contexts. Emily was intended to be a retaliatory strike the moment the USSR popped off their missiles or crossed the Fulda Gap.

Obviously there are other reasons for intervention, but the only outlying explanation for the embargo against cuba is its internal economic policy. There is no other factor present in cuba that is not ignored elsewhere in the world.

Repeating something does not make it true. Cuba isn't blockaded because of economic policies, rather it is due to a myriad of factors, such as pleasing the Cuban exile lobby, bitterness over being directly threatened with annihilation etc.

 

[stokes234]

If the Plotters get wind of Allende getting news of their plot, they'll go ahead like there's no tomorrow, and potentially cause a civil war with quite a few more deaths than under Pinochet. That was something the US didn't want.

Considering the US were helping to create the climate for the coup in the first place, after which thousands were killed, tens of thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands arrested, it doesn't seem like preventing hardship for the chilean people was any kind of motivator at all for the US government. Perhaps warning them two days in advance wouldn't have prevented it, but they shouldn't have been conspiring against a democratically elected government in the first place.

And the report stated that activities promoting a coup peaked in 1970, and you have not proven with the report extract that it was CIA policy to instigate a coup in 1973.

I've shown that the CIA was still involved in activities that helped lead to the 1973 coup, and i've shown that they knew it would occur. I've also shown that they intended to help cause a coup in 1970, and that at the time they intended for that to be continuing policy even if it failed. What more exactly do I need to show, to prove my original point that america is perfectly happy to intervene in other countries and that humanitarian concerns are not the primary concern?

 

[Joey McGee]

Yeah. You mischaracterize what I say

lol if you think that "clarification" makes your insane insults any less damaging to yourself that's hilarious

, link to AAH, PM me, tell me to grovel and apologize, and wonder why I don't appreciate your "noble" gestures.

I just thought it was funny that you actually believed anyone would even give you the time of day after behaving like that.

You are as delusional about that as you are about why Iraqis and Afghans don't appreciate our bombing of their countries.

Please link to where I make a statement about why they are mad at us. More desperate ploys...

Nice try at the us against themism, but:

my full statement:

And you wonder why I don't appreciate your false maturity?

You think that somehow your full quote makes what you said any less offensive? Well I'm glad that I don't have that problem I'll put it that way.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The CIA may have written off warning allende as being too late in the game to do anything about it.

And you also assume that the CIA were the sole reason the coup took pace, rather than internal matters, such as disputes over Allende abusing power and behaving in a less than democratic fashion (the supreme court had ruled against him countless times and the Chamebr of deputies had passed a resolution in 22 August calling for his overthrow), as well as popular discontent for his failing policies. Oh wait, they were all puppets of the omnipotent CIA.

This disregards the fact that the Church Committee had a spyglass over every file they could get their hands on, and they would have publicly cremated the agency if incontrovertible evidence was found.

And the report also stated that the CIA had terminated plans to overthrow Allende after Track II was deemed a failure.

 

[funk de fino]

No, I'm not confused. He said, "It's absolutely justified when they are not the targets." "They" meaning hypothetical children casualties who might die if the IDF returned fire from a mortar position Hamas set up on a hypothetical apartment building.

I'm sorry that upsets you, but in that scenario it's Hamas that's responsible for their deaths, not Israel.

Backpedal eh? The disgusting part was glibly saying it was "absolutely justfied" killing children. Thats what I commented on. You turned it into a quibble about rules of engagement.

A chance at what? Your approval? You need to have mine first before yours becomes important to me.

A chance to realise you were on the outside of the corner.

Tell me why NATO can pull from attacking targets in similar situations?

 

[stokes234]

The USSR directly sought to provoke the US by placing the missiles on Cuba, while the missiles in Italy and Turkey were part of NATO operations. Completely different contexts. Emily was intended to be a retaliatory strike the moment the USSR popped off their missiles or crossed the Fulda Gap.

Considering the US already had missiles capable of hitting every major russian city, does it seem at all sensible for you to imply that the USSR would have used the missiles they stationed in Cuba offensively? Regardless, prove the bolded statements.

Repeating something does not make it true. Cuba isn't blockaded because of economic policies, rather it is due to a myriad of factors, such as pleasing the Cuban exile lobby, bitterness over being directly threatened with annihilation etc.

Show that cuba directly threatened the US with annihilation. If in your answer you intend to use the acquiring of nuclear weapons as a threat of annihilation, remember that the US was already capable of annihilating cuba with nuclear weapons or otherwise, at which point you must explain why it is ok for the US to threaten cuba, but not for cuba to threaten the US.

As to the exile lobby - do they justify forcing economic hardship on the cuban people? According to wiki, they make up ~0.5% of the american population, many of them being second or third generation. And on top of that, according to this poll, 55% of miami-based cuban americans actively oppose the trade embargo. A majority also support restablishing diplomatic relations and ending the travel ban. Are these people still the reason for keeping the embargo going?

Like I said before, the only outlying explanation is cuba's internal economic policy.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

AFAIK, the Us did not directly threaten to nuke Russia back to the stone age with nukes until the Russians had planted missiles on Cuba.

It was pat of Khrushchev's policy to try and test President Kennedy because he thought that he was naive, and sought to push him further and further. First with the Berlin Wall and then with Cuba in 1962.

Oh wait, they were justified in threatening to annihilate the US because of economic policy

And the US was only using Project Emily as a contingency should the USSR cross the Fulda Gap. If it were intended to be a first strike mechanism, they would have used them, along with the missiles across NATO, in 1962.

And you forget that the Cuban exile lobby can be VERY vocal, which is what matters at the end of the day in politics.

And if internal economic policy was the sole factor for US foreign policy, then the world would be glass.

 

[stokes234]

The CIA may have written off warning allende as being too late in the game to do anything about it.

Yes, maybe. Or maybe they decided not to try to prevent a coup that they had helped foment, and which they quite blatantly wanted to occur. I guess we'll never know.

And you also assume that the CIA were the sole reason the coup took pace,

You've really got to stop attributing arguments to me that aren't mine. Where did I assume this? If you don't answer this question, i'm going to press this point, because it's annoying. I am well aware that there were other factors, but the evidence that the CIA did meddle in cuba is evidence that the US meddles in other countries, and thus the "beehive of latin america" defence is void.

rather than internal matters, such as disputes over Allende abusing power and behaving in a less than democratic fashion (the supreme court had ruled against him countless times and the Chamebr of deputies had passed a resolution in 22 August calling for his overthrow), as well as popular discontent for his failing policies.

Allende wasn't perfect, but he was a hell of alot better than a military dictator such as Pinochet. If his policies had lost public support, regardless of whether or not this was due to CIA-funded propaganda, why not wait until the next election and allow chile to determine their own leader? Why continue fomenting the climate for a coup?

Oh wait, they were all puppets of the omnipotent CIA.

I never made that claim.

This disregards the fact that the Church Committee had a spyglass over every file they could get their hands on, and they would have publicly cremated the agency if incontrovertible evidence was found.

This (for the 4th time in this thread) refutes a claim I am not making, that the CIA directly instigated the coup. The Church reports backs up my claim that the CIA helped create the climate for the coup.

And the report also stated that the CIA had terminated plans to overthrow Allende after Track II was deemed a failure.

Where does it state this? It states that the attempt by the CIA to directly instigate a coup in 1970 were not continued, but I am not claming they were. I am claiming that the CIA were still helping to build an atmosphere under which a coup would be more likely to occur, and the report shows that they did this. Along with my previous examples of CIA interference -

"During late 1971 and early 1972, the CIA adopted a more active stance vis a vis its military penetration program, including a short-lived effort to subsidize a small anti-government news pamphlet directed at the armed services, its compilation of arrest lists and other operational data, and its deception operation. "

The deception operation refers to the attempt to convince Chilean army officers that there were cuban operatives in the Chilean army.

The report also states, in regard to CIA activities 1970-73 - "The CIA's information-gathering efforts with regard to the Chilean military included activity which went beyond the mere collection of information. More generally, those efforts must be viewed in the context of United States opposition, overt and covert, to the Allende government. They put the United States Government in contact with those Chileans who sought a military alternative to the Allende presidency. "