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:
United States invading other countries
And you realize the United States invaded them during 1973?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.
View attachment 270883
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.
Again false, We've talked about this before in this thread.ome problems about communism are as follows: strong government control,
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.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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'étatThe report stated that the CIA "actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency." After a review of recordings of telephone conversations between Nixon and Henry Kissinger, Robert Dallek concluded that both of them used the CIA to actively destabilize the Allende government. In one particular conversation about the news of Allende's overthrow, Kissinger complained about the lack of recognition of the American role in the overthrow of a "communist" government, upon which Nixon remarked, "Well, we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one." A later CIA report contended that US agents maintained close ties with the Chilean military to collect intelligence but no effort was made to assist them and "under no circumstances attempted to influence them."
Also meanwhile in 1962The 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
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?*Sudden jump 10 years into the past*
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 warI mentioned as much. Your claim was that the U.S. invaded Chile in 1973
Great, but you also shouldn't fund opposition parties in a country you are not apart of as a means to overthrow a democratic electionAs 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.
Simple yes. not necessarily directly 1973. I'll concede there. as it begun a bit earlier.Now, let's make this a simple yes or no question - did the U.S. invade Chile in 1973, yes or no?
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.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 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.
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.Side note to actual readers - the U.S. did not invade Chile, by definition.
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.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 love how GBATemp claims that was a quote of my real post lmao.ftfy
if your down to nickpick word choice than I'm taking it that you have no other arguments left.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.
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.if your down to nickpick word choice than I'm taking it that you have no other arguments left.
I have not stated ANYTHING that implies they went to war. I stated invasion, invasion, does not have to mean military.You're literally claiming that something that never happened did in fact happen.