-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
I especially liked the part about Chile escaping the iron grasp of socialism, with support of the U.S. - good for them. After the removal of Allende and the dissolution of the subsequent junta the country adopted the principles of free market capitalism and by 2017 it became the richest country in South America, according to World Bank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_American_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Allende's government and the "Chilean path to Socialism" caused massive inflation and widespread poverty.
Nicely done, Allende. This is what we call a "nosedive".
The "Miracle of Chile" shows that proper economic policy is a prerequisite to a functioning society - comparing average salaries in Chile and Venezuela is comical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Viva Chile! I hope its neighbours were taking notes.
Last edited by Foxi4,
Some problems about communism are as follows: strong government control, little motivation for individuals to improve themselves, limited freedom for the individual, and protection of inefficient people or producers. Communism is an economic system in which every member of society receives an equal share of the benefits that come from labor. That's what I have to say about communism regarding this discussion
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
And you realize the United States invaded them during 1973?
Which goes with that drop? Did you even watch the video fully?
Are you okay foxi4?
Because most of the people in chile, wanted that goverment, and the united states overthrew it. There's no justifying that.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Again false, We've talked about this before in this thread.
Communism does not mean authortian. the form of economic system is separate from the government system. Most communists of today don't want another USSR, they want anarcho communism, which is effectively, very little goverment power as a democracy, and nothing else. No leaders, no dictators.
The military coup in Chile was immediately preceded by 2 years of civil unrest caused by Allende's disastrous policies. Chile's downfall didn't begin in '73 - it stared in '71 - pretty much as soon as the country entered its "path to socialism" phase. By '73 the country was well and truly primed for a civil war after a wave of demonstrations and clashes between the left and the right following Allende's nationalisation efforts. We're not even talking about one singular coup - there were multiple coup attempts, especially after Allende started breaking the Chilean constitution. He was officially charged by the Chamber of Deputies on August 22nd, and his response was "nah, I didn't do that, business as usual". The Chilean people, especially the middle class which used to be well-off when their private businesses were allowed to function, quickly realised that they've made a massive mistake, and the Chilean military was all too happy to remove him from office. Saying that the majority of voters wanted Allende is an outright lie - he won by plurality of 36%, not by majority. It was a run-off, and National Congress had to certify based on tradition alone, despite being urged not to do so. This support quickly dwindled as the country's economic output went down the drain. Chileans by and large are *infinitely* better off, especially compared to their neighbours. You, on the other hand, have trouble with reading a pretty basic graph. The country was paralysed by strikes, it could not function any longer - of course Allende had to be removed.
EDIT: As a side note, no - the U.S. did not invade Chile in 1973. They provided support to the Chilean Armed Forces indirectly via the "economic war" policy under Nixon. The U.S. created conditions in which a successful coup could take place, but did not "invade" Chile. There was some involvement of the CIA and American intelligence had their agents in contact with Chilean military officers, but they did not actively instigate the coup - they merely condoned it. The phone transcripts between Nixon and Kissinger prove as much. There was no magical U.S. military intervention in Chile that crippled the economy that year - the economy was already crippled, hence the civil unrest. I don't know where you're getting these alternative facts from - I assume they're from Best Buy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état
Last edited by Foxi4,
Every ideology crumble when it factor in people's greed. Everybody want to be richer than their neighbors, nobody want to pay tax. And people with a lots of money won't just hand out their money to other either. A world where everyone sharing breads, holding hand and singing Kumbaya just aren't realistic even though both capitalism and communism promised the same thing.
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
Also meanwhile in 1962
https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=honors_theses
The opposition parties because the left wing party was growing strong in chilla. Got funding from the United states directly
....Nearly immediately the CIA began “serious preparations to forestall such an eventuality” and approved immediate monetary support to the two opposition
parties to the FRAP, the Christian Democrats and the Radical Party"
after they failed to prevent FRAP:
"In 1962, the mid term parliamentary elections resulted in a substantial
victory for the FRAP and a decisive loss for the Chilean conservatives11. At this
point, the American government began to seriously reconsider their actions (or lack
of action) in Chile in terms of fighting the spread of leftist politics. In addition,
during this time, many policymakers and, perhaps more importantly, the American
public, was unaware of the involvement of the American government in the Chilean
political system... tthroughout the course of the election period, roughly
$4 million dollars had been spent by the American government in order to support
various parties that competed against the FRAP and perform “some fifteen covert
action programs” to undermine the FRAP’s own political objectives"
"The election in 1964, which eventually tilted in favor of the Christian
Democrats under the leadership of Eduardo Frei, was seen as an affirmation for the
CIA that their plan had worked. "
So they succeeded in interfering with that election.
But the United States was loosing ground in chille, as the next election was going further and further leftist.
So they amped up their program
"in addition
to this program, Washington carried out a two-‐pronged attack on The Unidad
Popular party and Salvador Allende that was strikingly similar to the tactics used in
the 1964 election. Again, the CIA implemented a “scare campaign” while massive
amounts of U.S. funding flowed into the political campaigns of Allende’s
opponents"
" Along with his national security advisor Henry Kissinger, Nixon
believed that the American government must do everything it could to keep Allende
from being inaugurated"
Ah yes, the most democratic nation, saying that they don't like another nation having an election, NOT in their favor.
"
In one particularly secretive meeting, Nixon met with
Attorney General John Mitchell and Director of the CIA Richard Helms and these
three men discussed plans to conduct covert operations in Chile to destabilize
Allende. Years later, Helms’ notes of the meeting revealed one of Nixon’s eventual
goals of the operation: to “make the economy scream.”49
As efforts to destabilize Allende began to come apart, Nixon’s economic
program started to come to life. From American corporations with vested interest in
Chile to business owners and economic elites within Chile itself, many groups and
individuals became prime targets for Nixon’s economic destabilization program. In
theory, his program would encourage businesses within Chile to promote economic
instability on a domestic level while massive cuts in aid and economic assistance
would cripple Chile’s economy on an international level. To this point, American
foreign aid to Chile decreased from over $260 million in 1967 to under $4 million by
1973"
So in other words, no, it's not communism that dropped their economy. It was the United States directly interfering over, and over and over again.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
"By securing a high level of influence and access to the Chilean political
system, and more importantly Allende’s own political coalition, the CIA was able to
more effectively implement devastating covert economic action against the Allende
regime. One of the most economically crippling events within the Allende era was a
45 day long strike held by the Chilean truckers union. Years later, it would be
revealed that the CIA had helped finance this strike by using laundered money
through various backchannels and third parties, including Christian Democratic
parties in Europe"
funded by the United States. Destabling a goverment, by the United States, for the United States.
I am well-aware of economic sanctions against Chile as well as intelligence operations in the region - I mentioned as much. Your claim was that "the U.S. invaded Chile in 1973" and that was the cause of the country's economic collapse - are you now making a concession or are you deflecting and back-pedalling by restating what was already said?
As a side note, no government is obligated to provide foreign aid or to trade with another, particularly not if they're opposed to the ruling party and in support of the opposition party. If that causes the economy of said country to collapse then it wasn't a sustainable economy anyway.
Now, let's make this a simple yes or no question - did the U.S. invade Chile in 1973, yes or no? If you can't answer that question then there's no point in discussing this with you, I'm not interested in your alternative facts.
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
Well considering multiple CIA agents came to the country, No. I'm not going to make a concession. Or backdown. Engaging in economic warfare and sending federal agents by my books is still invasion, it doesn't have to mean military war
And also
"Allende's government and the "Chilean path to Socialism" caused massive inflation and widespread poverty."
This is the part I should of quoted specifically. Since you said it caused massive inflation and was chilles fault.
That's false, the United States caused that massive inflation.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Great, but you also shouldn't fund opposition parties in a country you are not apart of as a means to overthrow a democratic election
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Simple yes. not necessarily directly 1973. I'll concede there. as it begun a bit earlier.
Last edited by ,
That's a lot of words instead of a yes or a no. Did they invade Chile or not? You're unnecessarily extending your own agony, there's no shame in making a mistake if you can take it on the chin. Doubling down on a mistake makes you look foolish, and a poor interlocutor. If you're refusing to ingest facts then no actual debate is taking place, you're just proclaiming your beliefs on a soap box. History is what it is - you can't have an opinion on it, things either happened or they did not.
Edit: Nevermind, you're doubling down on stupid. That's that then, have a nice thread, I suppose.
Side note to actual readers - the U.S. did not invade Chile, by definition.
Invasion, noun - an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
Last edited by Foxi4,
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
I explained my definition, as saying invasion doesn't really work in the modern era of cold wars. Where rather than using direct force, you use other means.
"Well considering multiple CIA agents came to the country, No. I'm not going to make a concession. Or backdown. Engaging in economic warfare and sending federal agents by my books is still invasion, it doesn't have to mean military war"
I don't care what your definition is. This is a common trick - redefining words to exaggerate claims and make them all fit neatly into the narrative you're trying to sell. No, there was no invasion of Chile in 1973, or the years preceding 1973. Iraq - that's an invasion. Boots and tank treads on the ground, missiles and planes in the skies. An armed military force entering a foreign country for a specific combat purpose. In order to be considered an invader, one must be a belligerent in the armed conflict. The U.S. most definitely had a hand in overthrowing Allende's regime (a man who might I add was being chastised by his own Chamber of Deputies for attempting to establish a totalitarian system of government and steamrolled over the constitution as he pleased), the government definitely funded the opposition party (which is a 100% election interference), it definitely engaged in a trade war with Chile and it definitely ran intelligence operations in the country, it did not invade Chile. If we can't agree on that basic historical fact and you instead choose to make ridiculous claims "because you have your own definition" then the discussion is silly and not worth having. I also vehemently disagree with the notion that the economy explicitly took a nosedive because of "U.S. interference" - that played a part, but by your own admission, the government has been involved in Chile a decade prior to Allende's government being installed. It took a *sharp* nosedive as a direct result of boneheaded economic policy which provided quick benefits in the short term that dissipated over the following years until the economy spiralled out of control.
Last edited by Foxi4,
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
if your down to nickpick word choice than I'm taking it that you have no other arguments left.
Further more
"I also vehemently disagree with the notion that the economy explicitly took a nosedive because of "U.S. interference" - that played a part, but by your own admission, the government has been involved in Chile a decade prior to Allende's government being installed"
Yes,they were involved previously, infact, the United States succeeded in getting their candidate in. Then the second one was constantly interfered, but they, United states, lost.
Second, I have to repeat this.
"In one particularly secretive meeting, Nixon met with
Attorney General John Mitchell and Director of the CIA Richard Helms and these
three men discussed plans to conduct covert operations in Chile to destabilize
Allende. Years later, Helms’ notes of the meeting revealed one of Nixon’s eventual
goals of the operation: to “make the economy scream.”
Nixon's goal was to literately tank the economy. No buts.
"
"By securing a high level of influence and access to the Chilean political
system, and more importantly Allende’s own political coalition, the CIA was able to
more effectively implement devastating covert economic action against the Allende
regime."
This doesn't get any more damning, it wasn't Chile's bonehead decisions. this was the United States actively interfering.
Edit:
Re read what I stated before responding, I had to make adjustments for clarity sake
Last edited by ,
You're literally claiming that something that never happened did in fact happen. That's not "word choice", that's "factual error". I would be nitpicking if I started correcting your spelling, but I'm enacting the mental effort of going through your posts because I'm interested in where this goes, and mildly entertained.
The economy collapsed because of Allende, his economic policy and last-minute austerity measures. The country was heavily reliant on copper exports, it was its primary export commodity, accounting for as much as 50% of receipts. In the same time frame the price of copper plummeted by 1/3rd - if you put all of your eggs in one basket, you only need to trip up once to go hungry. Moreover, agrarian reform and nationalisation of industries didn't quite work out as planned and hyperinflation set in - at that point the snowball is pushed down the hill and only grows in time.
D
Deleted User
Guest
OP
I have not stated ANYTHING that implies they went to war. I stated invasion, invasion, does not have to mean military.
I could say coach roaches are invading my house right now, and it would make sense. The CIA, right, invaded chille, which is by extension, the united states. The United States, DIRECTLY interfered, they effectively invaded.
Do I have to make myself anymore clear than that?
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
@
Sonic Angel Knight:
Or, I also heard that if you use flash memory, it can act as more "RAM" at least windows tell me when I stick a flash drive into it. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I can think of the design teams process another joystick and no audio or a joystick and mono audio -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
