Iran And Venezuela Launch Anti-us Fund

We fought for Pinochet? We sent troops in and American soldiers fought for Pinochet? The US government supports anti-communist movements among other things. Pinochet was decidedly right-wing and was preferable to Allende, who was far left and enjoyed the support of the USSR and Cuba. Who do you think the US would support, the guy who goes against their policy or the guy that isn't as hostile. You might want to look up the definition of "support." No, wait, I'll do it for you:

7. to maintain or advocate (a theory, principle, etc.).

The US happened to agree with what Pinochet said he would do. And no, he didn't go around shouting "I'm going to murder thousands and imprison thousands more."

Let's not forget the fact that Allende brought elements of the military into his government to keep himself in power after the locals began getting pissed with him (economy was going down the drain, they got mad, riots came, they tried and failed to overthrow him), got the locals angry at him, and generally pissed the country away in his three years of rule. The US saw it as a overthrowing of a failed government.

Hindsight, however, is 20/20. If you can see into the future, let me know. It's easy to criticize actions that have already been taken. Pinochet promised to bring a "true" democracy to Chile. He brought instead a reign of terror and a military junta. Note that the US dropped its support for Pinochet after he started to pull this stuff.

 

This is one of the consequences and many yet to come of voting for the Reps. and Bush....

Honestly I dont blame these guys, the current adminstration ----ed up America's image in the whole world! and Bush is still on the rampage and is sending more troops into Iraq, and he doesnt give a ---- that the PEOPLE and CONGRESS , are against him..

yeah yeah , give me your "Blame it on Bush" saracastic remarks, but your damn right i blame it on him.

 

The US armed and funded pinochet. Pinchoets mission was topple a left-wing DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED goverement. Doesnt the US adovacte democracy? Oh nvm I see it, they support it when the candiates who win supports the US. And if the winner doesnt, they overthrow them that is real democratic. Actually the eco under Allenda was improving. The US did not see a failed goverement but rather a goverement that didnt SUPPORT their imperalstic policies.

 

while i do not support anti-US sentiments i can't help but feel like the US maybe had this coming to them

 

This is no biggie. Just call Jack Baur.

 

the US has done some moves which were pretty dick towards other countries

the iraqi invasion was not one of them.
the vietnam invasion was.

imperialism is defined as taking over the other country as a colony, Iraq is not an American colony and it is not a puppet state.

 

Actually imperalism is more than just a colony. It can take many forms, please look at my above defifintion.

 

I agree with machiavelli, however I do no endorse their terrorism.

The US constantly arms and funds countries, that they later turn around and attack. How you think Iraq got all the nukes and weapons they had? The US supplied them.

US wants Hamas gone, despite that they were elected democratically by people who didnt have guns held to their head. They're a lot better off.

You guys would be fine, if you elected a smart president. Don't understand why you let idiots run the country. From the very beginning I was like why arent they voting Al gore.

 

Iran and Venezuela ftw!!!!!

 

Machiavelli, America f'ed up big time during the cold war and we put sadaam in power. What we did in Iraq was effectively owning up for what we had done in the past. We still are suffering the reprecussions, On the whole pretty much everyone wants the whole Iraq thing to be over and it hasn't gone as smoothely as planned.

if it weren't for the insurgency, we'de have been out of iraq within 6-12 months. If you want anyone to blame, blame the various factions within iraq, as America si still trying to remedy it's past mistake.

========
in recent history it can be traced back to WW2. The Baath party was forming based on much of what the Nazi party was based upon, strong nationalism and an intolent nature. During the cold war we America was only concerned with containing communism. We supported anyone who didn't support communism so we supported the Baathists. Now the Iraqi people are paying for it, but progress is being made as much as possible.

 

You should not epxcept to walk into a country as a foreign force epxcetpting not be attacked that is just idotic and no war is fought like that. I balme the people who decided to attack my country without sufficent or even correct intelligence. And the original Baath party was not a model of Fascim or Nazism but rather it was a movement aiming at democracy, throwing the westerners out, and a united Arab state/pan-Arab nationalism. Many Baathists also advocated state socialism. The Iraqi branch of the Baathist party declared itself in favor of state socialism prior to the '58 revolution. Of course, once they got in power the realities of holding power caused them to change their stances repeatedly So they were actual left-leaning during the 50-60s but they changed from then. And you must remeber that the US supported Saddam because they saw him as the lesser evil of the Iranians. But now the Baathists are pretty much fascits dip-----s.


"edit" I cant spell

 

the fact remains that the German Nazi party supported the Baathist movement against the Brits durring WWII and like it or not, there is a surprising level of parellels between the Baath party of Iraq and the Nazi party of Germany.

The Baath party was born in the 30s from Michael Aflaq and Salah al-Din Bitar and sought to unite nationalism and socialism in the Arabic states. There was certainely an anti-western sentiment because the Baathist party sought

so seriosuly, explain to me how a national-socialist based party which was in the underground durring WWII, which opposed British imperialism and recieved support form Germany, was opposed to the jews, and had many of its prominent leaders in Italy and Germany during the time had no influence from the nazi party of Germany.

I'm not saying that the Baathist party is an extension of it, but it's originas are very similar, western educated, ----marxist french-syrians started the baathist party with hopes of independence, democracy was not the goal, a free, unified arabic state was. Things have gone a little astray from that goal though if you hadn't noticed... And the US-Soviet conflict is to blame, both sides tried to manipulate the middle east in its favor and the ent result was that the US replaced half of the governments there and the soviets the other half. With the Soviet Union disolved, pretty much the only one left to pick up the ---- is the US, because as is, the middle east is in shambles and is far from what it can and should be, it coudl ebso much mroe stabel over there, and I highly doubt you'de argue that it couldn't stand improvement on a socio-economic level. The oil-wealth is there to fund an improved middle east(just look at much of kuwait and quatar), it's just a matter of proper distribution and social organization.


"edit" I cant spell either so neglect misspellings.

 

I still don't know why anyone would support Iran who claims they are going to wipe israel off the face of the planet.

 

Yea, I agree; we're all pretty much screwed.

 

Do you know of a little thing called "The Cold War?" If you do not, it was basically West vs. Communism. Not the US, the West. As in the part of Europe that wasn't under Soviet rule, the US, and the rest of the non-communist nations. Some of these communist nations, like China and the USSR, had nuclear weapons, just as the US, France, and the UK did, and just as a few other nations scattered about posess. Instead of going all-out and vaporizing millions of people in the space of seconds, both sides fought through proxy wars, much as Iran and Syria fight Israel today using Hezbollah as a proxy. A proxy is a third party nation or group in this context.

Pinochet was a more favorable alternative to Allende in the US's eyes. Therefore, we armed him, just as the USSR, Cuba, and a few Eastern Bloc nations armed Allende to keep him in power. The Eastern Bloc/Cuba/Soviets were supporting Allende. The US supported Pinochet.

At the time, the issue was not necessarily democracy and flag-waving, it was to keep the region stable. A large communist nation in South America wasn't the least bit acceptable to the West. Notice I say "the West" here and not just "the US." The French and British armed Pinochet as well, as did the West Germans, Italians, and even the Canadians.

For the sake of time, I'm going to refer to the two groups as Warsaw Pact (Military alliance of communist nations) and NATO (Military alliance of Western nations). Both are the same thing, just different sides of the Berlin Wall.

Some NATO nations sent military advisors to Pinochet's army shortly after the coup. Certain Warsaw Pact nations, namely the USSR, Cubans, and even the Czechs had placed advisors in the country when Allende was elected (though there is evidence that, like many South American countries at the time, the election was rigged by both sides - read up on it) to support their new socialist and ----communist ally. Both of these groups of advisors trained the respective military groups; the hands involved were not the US's alone. So, are you prepared to call most of the former Eastern Bloc, Cuba, the USSR, almost all of NATO, and even Canada imperialists? Each group did the exact same thing.

The Warsaw Pact members weren't there to sell girl scout cookies, Machaivelli. They were there to strengthen Allende's ----communist government, to consolidate its power so that socialism and hopefully communism would have very strong bases in the area. As you say, imperialism takes many forms, Machaivelli.

Pinochet happened to pull the coup at a convienent time; the country wasn't exactly pleased with Allende at the time. The citizens had already tried to overthrow him in 1970-71, before the US and NATO had gotten involved with Pinochet. The economy at the time Pinochet pulled his coup was increasing, but slowly. The economy wasn't making very much progress in the people's eyes, regardless of whether it was better under Allende. The citizens of Santiago waved and threw flowers at Pinochet's tanks as they moved to the government buildings.

As for the Warsaw Pact advisors, some fled the country, some were captured by Pinochets forces. Those that were were paraded before the national media, imprisoned, tortured, and shot. As I've said before, hindsight is 20/20. If the US could go back into the past and drop its support for Pinochet knowing that he would begin a reign of terror much like Saddam's, they would probably do so. Unfortunately, thousands were killed and thousands more were imprisoned and in some cases tortured.

As you've said before, just like the US's support of Saddam in the 80s against Iran, it was the lesser of two evils.

So why is it OK for the Warsaw Pact to walk into nations like Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bolivia, Chile, numerous African nations, and Cuba, all attempting to overthrow valid governments to spread their ideology, but it is not OK for the US to support those who it chose to support? Why is it OK for the US to support Saddam but not Pinochet?

If you're hinting at Iraq, read the stated goals for the invasion.
- Chemical and biological weapons were found
- Evidence of use has been found (in the form of Iraqi positions containing NBC suits, vaccines for the chemical/biological agents, and even artillery shells with the weapons found at those positions)
- A terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam was allowed into the country in 2002. This group was allowed in by Saddam's foriegn minister, given visas, and allowed to set up a training camp. This group was supplied with chemical weapons by Saddam.

We had intelligence on all three of those points. Not valid intelligence? WMDs are more than just nuclear weapons.

Iraq's WMD program was done by the Iraqis. The US turned a blind eye to it, just as it did to South Africa, the French, the British, and the Israelis.

The US wants Hamas gone because it sees them as a terrorist group. Until it renounces violence against Israel and recognizes the state instead of screaming for its destruction, Hamas's case won't be helped very much.

The US arms nations if those nations request it. It doesn't just drop a crate of M-16s out of the back of a plane somewhere over Kenya. That's my tax dollars sending out the aid, and as a result I have to elect a congressman who I think will do the right thing with those tax dollars. It has to be voted on over here, too.

Enough with the "Bush is a retard" lines. If we had elected Al Gore for president, we'd probably be in a state much like Israel, being attacked but largely unable to respond. And no, Clinton, I don't mean a few half-assed cruise missiles either. Bush has done more to protect the nation in the past seven years than the likes of Gore, Clinton, his wife, and people like Pelosi and Ted Kennedy have ever done through their complaining. They've got the majority in Congress now, so it *should* get better since America elected "smart" people for once.

Lennox, while I respect your opinion, know that Bush doesn't have all the power of the government. He can't send us to war, he can't do any number of things. Much of it is done by Congress, whose actions are in turn checked by the Supreme Court for legality. Nobody can do anything without the other signing off on it. Don't just blame Bush. Doing so is just ignorant and makes you as "stupid" as you claim Bush to be.