Kissinger, Pinochet, and America's unwillingness to learn.

[Sibling Chatty]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1214-33.htm

Yet, after creating Pinochet, the US created Saddam, and many more like him.

(I wonder if we should serve Kissinger up to the World Court on a silver platter.)

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Hmmm...maybe it's because I'm more of an isolationist (Open, friedly relations with all, entangling alliances with none), but I agree with some of Kissigner's sidement, though I dislike the fact that he supported Pinochet.
Chatty, edumacate me please, did we provide material support to Pinochet? Did we protect him from any uprisings?
If we didn't, then Kissinger doesn't belong in the World Court, in my opinon.

[Sibling Chatty]

Financial and material support.

The financial support, disguised as "humanitarian aid" supposedly was over $6 million BEFORE his coup.

His elite soldiers/guards were educated at American military installations here in the country, and at one point, there were over 300 "advisors" from the US military helping support his regime. The US had to pull some of them out when several were killed and there was a demand to know what they were doing there.

Kissinger went to the families and hinted that they'd have "ongoing problems" in all governmental dealings if the questions didn't stop. When the "ongoing problems" included stopping medical coverage for a severely disabled child, they stopped. That didn't prevent the next 10 years of IRS abuse, though.

Kissinger/Nixon and the enemies list. Scary, yet timely, information.

[ivor]

Pinochet was the leader of an American financed overthrow of a democratically elected government.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Was it Kissinger's decision to support that regime? Or was it from someone else?

[Sibling Chatty]

Kissinger was the lead on it. Nixon was President, and he was easily led by Kissinger, as Kissinger was regarded as a great intellectual and Nixon was not.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Drat. Well, I always sort of liked Kissinger, but I suppose he ought to face something then.
Though I think Chile's judical system ought to handle it, not  the World Court.

[goat starer]

Bit of a shame pinochet managed to avoid court in Spain, Chile and everywhere else. At least Tom Shannon (Secretary of State western hemisphere) has admitted that the period "reflects badly on both Chile and the US". Small comfort for Allende and the Chileans!

some lovely stuff about the links between CIA and Pinochet repression here

[beagle]

Niall Ferguson has a half-hearted attempt at the "at least he was one of our sons-of-bitches" defence in the Telegraph today. You know he's on dodgy ground when he starts describing "The Economist"'s less flattering views as penned by teenagers.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Pinochet was a monster, one of the philosophical offsprings of the italian and spaniard fascism. I am still appalled to hear people both american and chilean that still defend him. On the same token I cannot believe that Chile's economic success required all the torture, murder and terror of his rule.

May he rest in hell with his buddies*.

*Sorry for the not-so-humble rant, but once you know what he did, there isn't much good will left.

[ivor]

They just had to do anything in their power to get rid of those nasty socialist.  Like the fact that socialism isn't economically viable isn't enough.

Beware of the politician that leads by fear for he has things to hide.

[goat starer]

Like the fact that socialism isn't economically viable isn't enough.

Contoversial opinion there old chap. Socialism has no inherant reson why it shouldn't work economically and I would strongly argue that rampant capitalism has been shown clerly to be an economic failure for the vast majority of people on the face of this planet.

I does make me kind of cross that for so many years we have been wandering round the world telling people to be democratic until they vote in soeone we dont like at which point we depose them, strip democratic rights etc. Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, Hamas in Palestine, Allende, Chavez etc. Even the first two, though clearly linked illegal activity, need to be worked with. Northern Ireland has shown pretty well that you create change by dialogue not arms.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I would have to disagree with you there, Goat. I'm no economic expert, but I would say that the majority of those who have tried capitalism and had it fail on them did it the wrong way. You can't force it, and you can't have government-own corperations. Really, the government should keep its nose out of it, and let things run their course. Get things some time, a decade or so I would guess, for companies to get settled.

I would agree that they need to be worked with, but I'm not sure how much anyone is going to get out of Chavez. Hamas, however, I'm reluctant to suggest we work with until they de-arm their militant wing.

[goat starer]

When I say that capitalism has failed most people I do not mean that capitalist nations are not economically successful but that that economic success is by definition at the expense of large parts of their own population and everyone in the third world capitalism is vary successful for the 500 people at the top whose combined income is the same as the combined incomes of 416 million people at the bottom (UN Human Development repor 2005). In a system that is based on competition rather than cooperation there have to be many losers for each winner. In the States and the UK millions of people live in poverty in nations that are economically successful - for those people the gret economic progress of capitalism brings no benefit at all.

income and resource distribution are something I believe we should be ashamed of and the common call of the right that "socialism does not work" (made with very little evidence I feel) should not be an excuse to say that we should not seek a more equitable system.

this diagram from the BMJ site shows the real effect of capitalism and as the author says it "smacks you right between the eyes"...




Anyhow thats what I think but I realise I tend to be in the minority on this one 

[beagle]

But your case (understandably) says Capitalism is failing because of the wide disparity of income. Look at it another way though. Bill Gates, say, may make an astronomical sum of money, but because of his ingenuity 60000 Microsoft employees don't do too badly either, not even counting all the employees of other industries built on the technology.

Incidentally there's an argument that real Capitalism helps equalise incomes. Look at the EU. It's the free market countries like the UK and Ireland that let Easterm Europeans in to work and send money home, it's the free market countries that would dismantle the CAP and let African and other developing world farm produce in.