Kamm, we all realize that cheerleading for oppressive regimes -- and
those that prop them up -- requires a sizable quantity of time and
energy, but I figured you still might squeeze in some time to reply to
Mr. Carley's evidence with an hilarious howler for everyone else's
Many links have been posted, but I alone appear to have read them. NO
evidence in them whatsoever demonstrating direct US involvement in the 1973
coup. Go back and check. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to
give evidence, and none exists.
For the record, here are the facts that you are so unfamiliar with. The only
evidence for any US involvement in Chile goes back to 1970, when the
totalitarian would-be dictator Allende received an election result in which
62.7% of the vote went to candidates opposed to him. He aftually received a
lower percentage share of the poll than Pinochet did when he lost the
referendum of 1989. Nixon wanted to prevent Allende from using a 1% lead
over the closest party to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, and no
democrat or humanitarian would criticise Nixon for that - certainly not I.
Nixon, however, unwisely went further than that and tried to persuade the
Chilean Congress to select another candidate, and rthen when this did not
work he tried what Kissinger has later described as a 'haphazard and
amateurish exploration of a military coup', not to take power but to force a
run-off election between Allende and the top democratic candidate. THAT
EFFORT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION: it was called off. More precsiely, the
American part was called off, but the Chilean part was bungled. Kissingere
wrote to Nixon on 15 October 1970 to warn that any coup attempt should be
aborted and called off. This is on the record. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER THAT THE US WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE 1973 COUP. The most that
was provided was finance for opposition parties - and this actually enhanced
democracy, because without it there would have no expression at all of
different points of view: newspapers couldn't be printed because of the
economic ruin produced by Allende and hence the lack of advertising. The
Church Committee, which was deeply hostile to the Nixon adminstration tried
to find such evidence and failed. Your own increasingly hysterical
denunciation demonstrates that you haven't got such evidence either.
"ogkamm" <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
Echelon Spider Bot 37A2 (In Training) reporting for duty Mr Kamm.
Why am I not allowed to mention
The infrequent poster and constant lurker formerly known as Bob Henderson.
Because that would muddy the crystal waters of certainty with the dung
I who have copied down this story, or more accurately fantasy, do not
credit the details of the story, or fantasy. Some things in it are
devilish lies, and some poetical figments; some seem possible and
others not; some are for the enjoyment of idiots.
And what about this claim that Allende was a totalitarian? My understanding
is he was an ardent defender of the constitution, that the left wing of his
party was pressing him to establish a proletarian dictatorship, because they
felt (rightly it turned out) that coup was inevitable, but he rebuffed them.
And re: this argument that 67% didn't want Allende- a similar argument could
have been made for overthrowing the government of Bill Clinton in 1993.
About your earlier claim that the US did nothing wrong in Guatemala in the
1980s- What kind of government would invite someone like Mario Sandoval
Alarcon, the "godfather" of the Guatemalan death squads to their
inauguration ceremony? It's just a coincidence that Reagan won the 1980
election and death squad killings substantially esacalated? There were no
Special Forces in Guatemala teaching the army and paramilitaries how to
better "neutralize" people? The School of the Americas in Georgia and
Panama ceased functioning in those years? It's true that Reagan got
Congressional heat, no doubt that's why he turned to Taiwan and Israel as
supplementary proxies for aiding the killers to the degree he preferred.
"ogkamm" <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
The US did not assassinate the head of the Chilean military. The Church
committee concluded that there was 'no evidence of a plan to kill Schneider or
that US officials specifically anticipated that Schneider would be shot during
the abduction'. If you have evidence to contrary, kindly show it, but won't,
because you haven't.
The US was entirely innocent of the economic chaos of Chile: that outcome was
the result of a ludicrous economic policy of the Allende regime, which resulted
in a 600% annual inflation rate.
Kissinger as Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that he wanted the
Pinochet regime to respect human rights. Sure, he was glad Allende fell, as any
democrat would be, for Allende was a totalitarian. So far from being a 'defender
of the constitution' [sic], Allende ignored the constitution.
But more to the point, I defy you to show where I have ever said that
such-and-such a US policy on Chile 'doesn't bother me'. What I actually said,
very carefully, following the terminology of the Church committee, was that
there was no evidence of direct US involvement in the 1973 coup. That was the
false claim made on this ng, and despite the usual round of abuse from those who
don't like to have their myths disturbed, it hasn't been substantiated.
> Almost all of this is false:
> The US did not assassinate the head of the Chilean military. The Church
> committee concluded that there was 'no evidence of a plan to kill
> that US officials specifically anticipated that Schneider would be shot
> the abduction'. If you have evidence to contrary, kindly show it, but
> because you haven't.
The most highly respected news show on American TV, CBS's 60 Minutes a few
of weeks ago did a story on this very issue. The US ambassador to Chile at
the time said Kissinger played a role in the organizing of the abduction,
and that the CIA funnelled them weapons precisely for this task, with HK's
approval. Declassified documents that 60 Min was provided by a
non-government research organization--whose purpose is to examine and
publish Freedom of Information Act documents--confirmed HK's involvement,
and caught him in several lies.
If your defense is solely the issue that they merely expected him to be
abducted and not killed (I don't recall what the piece had to say about this
one way or the other), what does that say about the "anti-fascist"
qualifications of the US government?
> The US was entirely innocent of the economic chaos of Chile: that outcome
> the result of a ludicrous economic policy of the Allende regime, which
> in a 600% annual inflation rate.
So you are saying the CIA was woefully ineffective in carrying out Nixon's
order to "make the economy scream"? I'm certainly not saying Allende's
policies had no impact, but I guess I have more confidence in the abilities
of the US that you do.
> Kissinger as Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that he wanted
> Pinochet regime to respect human rights.
Why provide lists of leftists then, knowing how they'd likely be used? Why,
as Hitchens reported, did Kissinger tell Pinochet (in newly released FOIA
documents) that his human rights comments at the OAS were to respond to
liberal-left criticism at home, and not to take them seriously?
>Sure, he was glad Allende fell, as any democrat would be, for Allende was a
totalitarian. So far from being a 'defender
> of the constitution' [sic], Allende ignored the constitution.
Why do you find it so obvious that Allende was establishing a
dictatorship...meaning, he'd not submit to any further elections?
> But more to the point, I defy you to show where I have ever said that
> such-and-such a US policy on Chile 'doesn't bother me'.
That's not a quote it's an inference, based on your effusive praise of the
US. If you do find some actions or postions of the US in the past morally
offensive, then I retract my statement, and apologize for the
2. No external action whatsoever was required to reduce Chile to an economic
shambles: Allende managed this all on his own by a hyper-inflationary policy. As
one concerned with workers' living standards, I condemn without reservation this
attack on their real wages.
3. Constitutional? Well, how about unilaterally postponing the plebiscite till
after the April 1971 elections?
4. Your inability to refute my point that there is no evidence of directn US
involvement in the 1973 coup is evident in your now attributing to me views that
I have not expressed. Indeed my sole point is the empirical one that no evidence
exists for the charge that has been repeated ad nauseam on this ng but which is
I think we can now take it as established that that point, viz. that no evidence
exists that the US was directly involved in the 1973 military coup, stands.
> What a wanker you are with your comment "As one concerned with workers'
> living standards". How about the living standards of the 3000 citizens
> murdered by Pinochet?
Minor point, but I think it was more than 3,000. If I understand it
correctly, 3000 is an enumeration of known cases and not an estimate. For
that, I have no idea, but I've heard 9,000 20,000 and 30,000. My
experience is, the higher figures in these type things are exaggerated, so
I'd arbitrarily take the 9,000.
The 3,000 refers to those verified by the Rettig Commission.
They still had around a thousand cases left to look at when
Pinochet shut them down. Note that these only include cases
where a surviving relative was willing and able to pursue
the subject. It also does not include those slain during the
actual coup. Nor does it include those who died of
starvation or disease because of Pinochet's economic
policies. The rate of deadly diseases like hepatitus and
typhoid fever skyrocketed under Pinochet.
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Here are two brief thought experiments that I hope and trust will put
degrading argument to rest. Both of them, as it happens, involve the
I have long kept September 11 as a day of mourning, because it was on
date in 1973 that ***Salvador Allende was murdered and Chilean
assassinated along with him***. We know all the details now, from the
giant corporations subsidized subversion to the way that ***US
commissioned "hit jobs" and sabotage***. It took the Chilean
years of patient struggle to regain their country and their
democracy, and the
small help I was able to offer them is one of the few things in my
which I can be proud. There was one spirited attempt to kill Augusto
Pinochet himself during this period, with which I had some sneaking
sympathy, but on the whole the weaponry of terror (death squads, car
bombs, the training of special killers) was in the department of
employed by Chilean and ***US officials working for, or with, the
And now Chilean dignity has been restored, and Pinochet himself is a
discredited and indicted figure, spared the rigor of law only for
reasons. We may even live to see justice done to some of his backers
Washington, though the holding of breath would be inadvisable.
I took the liberty of adding little stars in order to direct your
attention to the important parts of the most recent Minority Report
column written by your new hero Chrostopher Hitchens.
Soft on crime, soft on fascism; you know what that means Ollie, if I
tell Hitchens what your saying about Chile, he will say you are soft on
fascism, then he continually post abusive and slanderous replies denying
any possibility of pure thought.
(Maybe not, there may be some sanity left in Hitchens)
Completely unrelated, but just for you I've also included what I believe
to be the most revealing, and considering the context of current times,
the eeriest article of George Orwell.
(please see a few notes below the article)
As I Please
Tribune, 30 June 1944
I notice that apart from the widespread complaint that the German
pilotless planes "seem so unnatural" (a bomb dropped by a live airman is
quite natural, apparently), some journalists are denouncing them as
barbarous, inhumane and "an indiscriminate attack on civilians."
After what we have been doing to the Germans over the past two years,
this seems a bit thick, but it is the normal human response to every new
weapon. Poison gas, the machine-gun, the submarine, gunpowder, and even
the crossbow were similarly denounced in their day. Every weapon seems
unfair until you have adopted it yourself. But I would not deny that the
pilotless plane, flying bomb, or whatever its correct name
may be, is an exceptionally unpleasant thing, because, unlike most other
projectiles, it gives you time to think. What is your first reaction
when you hear that droning, zooming noise? Inevitably it is a hope that
the noise won't stop. You want to hear the bomb pass safely overhead and
die away into the distance before the engine cuts out. In other words,
you are hoping it will fall on somebody else. So also when you
dodge a shell or an ordinary bomb -- but in that case you have only
about five seconds to take cover and no time to speculate on the
bottomless selfishness of the human being.
Do you think it strange that Orwell would say something like "After what
we have been doing to the Germans over the past two years, this seems a
bit thick, but it is the normal human response to every new weapon"; it
sounds to me like Orwell's "use of
this incident to diminish the monstrosity of the terrorist attack is a
typical Chomsky maneuver, an accurate measure of his instinctive
Do you think that Orwell considered that "Disruption in this country is
what the terrorists want, and what the terrorists need" (Ibid.)?
Or do you think that Orwell was making a relevant and sincere comment,
pointing out the "bottomless selfishness of the human being"?
It's all just a little bit of history repeating.