> I mentioned that the toll of the “horrendous crime” of 9-11, committed with “wickedness and awesome cruelty” (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton’s bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998
There is still a moral difference: Al-Qaida tries to kill as many american civilians as they can. The US doesn't try to kill as many arab civilians as they can.
> The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office.
I'm trying to imagine what Chomsky would have said if the US had supported a coup against Hitler, a democratically elected socialist leader in an alliance with russia, before the second world war.
There would have been a civil war in germany, and even the right side of it would have mistreated some prisoners, caused some collateral damage, like every side in every war.
Like Hitler, Salvador Allende was democratically elected, but he was turning Chile into a dictatorship. Chile's Parlament literally wrote a letter to Pinochet asking for the coup.
> There is still a moral difference: Al-Qaida tries to kill as many american civilians as they can. The US doesn't try to kill as many arab civilians as they can.
Terrible argument. Consider several events from Al-Shifa bombing, bombing of Nagasaki etc. targeting a purely civilian population to achieve political and military goals.
> I'm trying to imagine what Chomsky would have said if
Criticisms of Chomsky would be taken far more seriously if it did not involve imagining things Chomsky would have done in imaginary scenarios. He has been active for 50+ years, why don't you just point out any particular claim by Chomsky that you disagree with? He has published copiously over 50 years!
> Salvador Allende was democratically elected, but he was turning Chile into a dictatorship
Upon assuming power, Allende began to carry out his platform of implementing a socialist programme called La vía chilena al socialismo ("the Chilean Path to Socialism"). This included nationalization of large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking), and government administration of the health care system, educational system (with the help of a United States educator, Jane A. Hobson-Gonzalez from Kokomo, Indiana), a programme of free milk for children in the schools and shanty towns of Chile, and an expansion of the land seizure and redistribution already begun under his predecessor Eduardo Frei Montalva,[31] who had nationalized between one-fifth and one-quarter of all the properties listed for takeover.[32] Allende also intended to improve the socio-economic welfare of Chile's poorest citizens;[33] a key element was to provide employment, either in the new nationalized enterprises or on public work projects.[33]
The rate of inflation fell from 36.1% in 1970 to 22.1% in 1971, while average real wages rose by 22.3% during 1971. Minimum real wages for blue-collar workers were increased by 56% during the first quarter of 1971, while in the same period real minimum wages for white-collar workers were increased by 23%, a development that decreased the differential ratio between blue- and white-collar workers’ minimum wage from 49% (1970) to 35% (1971). Central government expenditures went up by 36% in real terms, raising the share of fiscal spending in GDP from 21% (1970) to 27% (1971), and as part of this expansion, the public sector engaged in a huge housing program, starting to build 76,000 houses in 1971, compared to 24,000 for 1970.[41] During a 1971 emergency program, over 89,000 houses were built, and during Allende’s three years as president an average of 52,000 houses were constructed annually.[42] Although the acceleration of inflation in 1972 and 1973 eroded part of the initial increase in wages, they still rose (on average) in real terms during the 1971–73 period.[43]
As further noted by Ricardo Israel Zipper,
"By now meat was no longer a luxury, and the children of working people were adequately supplied with shoes and clothing. The popular living standards were improved in terms of the employment situation, social services, consumption levels, and income distribution."[40]
Throughout this presidency racial tensions between the poor descendants of indigenous people, who supported Allende's reforms, and the white elite increased.[65]
The United States opposition to Allende started several years before he was elected President of Chile. Declassified documents show that from 1962 through 1964, the CIA spent $3 million in anti-Allende propaganda "to scare voters away from Allende's FRAP coalition", and spent a total of $2.6 million to finance the presidential campaign of Eduardo Frei.[23][24]
The possibility of Allende winning Chile's 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US administration that wanted to protect US geopolitical interests by preventing the spread of Communism during the Cold War.[73] In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him.[74] Henry Kissinger's 40 Committee and the CIA planned to impede Allende's investiture as President of Chile with covert efforts known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called "parliamentary trickery", while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[74]
Additionally, some point to the involvement of the Defense Intelligence Agency agents that allegedly secured the missiles used to bombard La Moneda Palace.[75] In fact, open US military aid to Chile continued during the Allende administration, and the national government was very much aware of this, although there is no record that Allende himself believed that such assistance was anything but beneficial to Chile.
During Nixon's presidency, United States officials attempted to prevent Allende's election by financing political parties aligned with opposition candidate Jorge Alessandri and supporting strikes in the mining and transportation sectors.[76] After the 1970 election, the Track I operation attempted to incite Chile's outgoing president, Eduardo Frei Montalva, to persuade his party (PDC) to vote in Congress for Alessandri.[77] Under the plan, Alessandri would resign his office immediately after assuming it and call new elections. Eduardo Frei would then be constitutionally able to run again (since the Chilean Constitution did not allow a president to hold two consecutive terms, but allowed multiple non-consecutive ones), and presumably easily defeat Allende. The Chilean Congress instead chose Allende as President, on the condition that he would sign a "Statute of Constitutional Guarantees" affirming that he would respect and obey the Chilean Constitution and that his reforms would not undermine any of its elements.
Track II was aborted, as parallel initiatives already underway within the Chilean military rendered it moot.[78]
The most prominent United States corporations in Chile before Allende's presidency were the Anaconda and Kennecott copper companies and ITT Corporation, International Telephone and Telegraph. Both copper corporations aimed to expand privatized copper production in the city of El Teniente in the Chilean Andes, the world's largest underground copper mine.[81] At the end of 1968, according to US Department of Commerce data, United States corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. Anaconda and Kennecott accounted for 28% of United States holdings, but ITT had by far the largest holding of any single corporation, with an investment of $200 million in Chile.[81] In 1970, before Allende was elected, ITT owned 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Documents released in 2000 by the CIA confirmed that before the elections of 1970, ITT gave $700,000 to Allende's conservative opponent, Jorge Alessandri, with help from the CIA on how to channel the money safely. ITT president Harold Geneen also offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende in the elections.[82]
After General Pinochet assumed power, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told President Richard Nixon that the United States "didn't do it", but "we helped them...created the conditions as great as possible". (referring to the coup itself).[83] Recent documents declassified under the Clinton administration's Chile Declassification Project show that the United States government and the CIA sought to overthrow Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"). Many documents regarding the United States intervention in Chile remain classified.
US installing a dictator to prevent dictatorship in a democracy has to be the most insane arguments that I keep seeing that makes me question the entire education system!
> US installing a dictator to prevent dictatorship in a democracy has to be the most insane arguments that I keep seeing that makes me question the entire education system!
It worked though. Chile is a democracy now, no communist country is.
Chile was a democracy and US helped overthrow the democracy and install a dictatorship. The citizens managed to resist and recover their democracy after 20 years at a great cost to the country's poor and privatization of Chiles public mineral wealth. Also known as Chiles 9/11. What exactly "worked" here?
Also, are you seriously suggesting that no former communist country is a democracy now? How is this completely random false statement relevant to this discussion?
There is still a moral difference: Al-Qaida tries to kill as many american civilians as they can. The US doesn't try to kill as many arab civilians as they can.
> The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the U.S. succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office.
I'm trying to imagine what Chomsky would have said if the US had supported a coup against Hitler, a democratically elected socialist leader in an alliance with russia, before the second world war.
There would have been a civil war in germany, and even the right side of it would have mistreated some prisoners, caused some collateral damage, like every side in every war.
Like Hitler, Salvador Allende was democratically elected, but he was turning Chile into a dictatorship. Chile's Parlament literally wrote a letter to Pinochet asking for the coup.