Yank Hero Pinochet

[The Red Machine]

The following will prove the whole argument of "democracy, freedom, liberty..." is a complete joke as far as American foreign policy is concerned. It is no more than a pathetic excuse.

Today, they talk about "the worse of dictators who repressed his own people, killed them by the thousands" in relation to SH. Funny, if you look at the fact that only yesterday, they ended the reign of democraticly elected Salvador Allende and had him replaced by General Pinochet, who lead the country in a horribly repressive way for 17 years...

Next time you talk about terrorism killing thousands: look at your own actions. Next time you talk about wmd's killing hundreds of thousands: look at your own actions.

TRM.



The Pinochet files

A series of declassified US documents have revealed the extent of America's role in the Chilean coup, says Jonathan Franklin

Wednesday September 10, 2003

In this never-before-published photograph, General Augusto Pinochet (second from left) and President Salvador Allende (in white jacket) are seen on a trip in northern Chile in the months before the 1973 coup that left Allende dead and Pinochet in command of the government. Photograph: Fundacion Salvador Allende

September 11 1973 was a day of terror and bloodshed in Chile. After months of rising tension, army troops stormed the presidential palace, leaving President Salvador Allende dead and thousands prisoners throughout this previously democratic nation.
Now, on the 30th anniversary of the coup, professors, journalists and citizen activists around the world are continuing to expose the full role of the US government in financing and promoting this bloody coup, which ushered in the 17-year military dictatorship headed by General Augusto Pinochet.

Thousands of top secret documents which were declassified over the past five years have now been synthesized in a new book, The Pinochet File, by investigative reporter Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a Washington-based investigative centre. "The US created a climate of a coup in Chile, a situation of chaos and agitation," said Kornbluh. "The CIA and state department were worried that the [Chilean] military ... were not ready for a coup."

The top secret documents accumulatively detail the crude workings of Washington during the Cold War. "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup," reads a CIA document from October 1970. "It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and American hand be well hidden."

Two days after this document was written, top CIA officials proposed a terrorist campaign to stun the Chilean people into accepting a military regime.

"Concur giving tear gas cannisters and gas masks ... working on obtaining machine guns," reads a CIA memo dated October 18 1970.

"Use good officers ... Some low-level overflights of Santiago and bomb drops in areas not likely to cause casualties could have great psychological effect and might swing balance as they have so many times in past in similar circumstances."

While conservative Chileans argue that the coup was a home-grown affair, the current Chilean minister of education, Sergio Bitar, says: "That internal crisis was activated by the North American policies against it. We see how they energetically obstructed all types of credit from the World Bank and the InterAmerican Bank ... these were decisive actions. This were political and financial pressures that were very relevant [to the ensuing coup.]"

The US effort to destabilise Chile was led by a policy of massively funding and bribing non-leftwing Chilean politicians.

Throughout the 1960s, the US secretly spent millions funding political parties of their choosing - usually the moderate Christian Democrats led by Eduardo Frei Montalva. By the early 1970s, Chilean society had become so leftwing that Washington decided to change tactics. First, President Nixon authorised $10m to be spent "to make the economy scream".

He also authorised pro-coup initiatives designed to destroy the traditional reluctance of Chilean military men to take over civilian government.

"Pinochet will not be a stumbling block to coup plans", reads one memo written six months before the coup, in which the American government looks to build a veritable Dream Team of coup plotters. "The navy and air force are ready ... the military is getting ready to move."

As part of a particularly crude effort to remove army officers who supported democratic rule, the CIA organised to kidnap Rene Schneider, a Chilean army general.

That plot was botched; Schneider died, and today his family is suing the US government and Henry Kissinger in particular for playing a role in his murder.

Citing documents declassified in the past few years, the lawsuit alleges that the US government paid $35,000 to the men who plotted the actions against Schneider.

"I don't want revenge, I want the truth to be established," said a son of the murdered general, also named Rene, who now lives in Santiago and works for a television station.

Immediately after the coup, US officials worked hard to ease international criticism of the human rights record of the Pinochet regime. Rather than fear Washington¿s reproach, the military regime repeatedly sought help and advice.

Just weeks after the coup, the US ambassador in Chile sent a memo to Henry Kissinger noting that "the military government of Chile requires adviser assistance of a person qualified in establishing a detention centre for the detainees ... adviser must have knowledge in the establishment and operation of a detention centre".

Even when the full extent of the torture and executions in Chile were well known, the US government sought to integrate the Pinochet regime into international business circles.

Probably no figure more personalised the cruelty of the Pinochet regime than the head of its secret DINA police force, Manuel Contreras.

Previously classified documents now confirm that, not only was Contreras on the CIA payroll, but that when he came to Washington during the height of human rights abuses, the US state department had specific tasks for him.

"Contreras was also asked to check in with Anaconda [Copper] and General Motors to encourage them to resume operations in Chile."

 

[Raoul]

The following will prove the whole argument of "democracy, freedom, liberty..." is a complete joke as far as American foreign policy is concerned. It is no more than a pathetic excuse.

Today, they talk about "the worse of dictators who repressed his own people, killed them by the thousands" in relation to SH. Funny, if you look at the fact that only yesterday, they ended the reign of democraticly elected Salvador Allende and had him replaced by General Pinochet, who lead the country in a horribly repressive way for 17 years...

Next time you talk about terrorism killing thousands: look at your own actions. Next time you talk about wmd's killing hundreds of thousands: look at your own actions.

TRM.

Your arguement defeats itself. Just because the US has miscalculated with its policies in the past doesn't negate the fact that terrorism is a major problem in the world, and would exist irrespective of US policy. If you want to blame someone then you need to address the backwards nature of the middle east and the arab inbility to nurture civilized forms of government in that area of the world. Alot of these problems would evaporate instantly in there were more democracy and civility in the middle east.

 

[Kevrockcity]

the u.s. support of pinochet is certainly not representable of american foreign policy in general.

has american foreign policy always guided by the principle of always supporting the nicest guys? nope. is anyone's foreign policy guided by this? nope. american foreign foreign policy has generally been guided by acting in its best interests, the same as all countries. fortunately, acting in one's best interests and doing the "right thing" are not mutually exclusive and, in the case of the united states, has historically proven to be mostly the same thing.

i find it somewhat hypocritical as well that someone might bring up pinochet but also give de facto support to the likes of saddam hussein...

 

[Raoul]

i find it somewhat hypocritical as well that someone might bring up pinochet but also give de facto support to the likes of saddam hussein...

Thats cos he's a freedom hating communist.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Thats cos he's a freedom hating communist.

i don't know about that, but his posts certainly do have common unifying theme of anti-americanism.

if one wants to have a knowledgeable discussion about u.s. foreign policy, fine. but citing the lone example of pinochet is representative of it is simply lunacy. it's like "the people's history of the united states." the book brings up some fine points about mistakes the united states has made. but it omits all the good things the united states has done, and thus has no right to call itself a proper comprehensive "history."

certainly all of us have read good and bad things about the current situation in iraq. but it seems some posters only want to link to news items when it's bad and say "this is iraq, it's chaos." only sharing information when it's bad is not an objective discussion of a situation, sorry, it's just a symptom of biased punditry.

 

[kennyj]

There are others too. The US has backed dictators like Pinochet, Somoza, Marcos and the shah, but in each of those cases, the US eventually turned against the dictators and actively aided in their ouster. In Chile and the Philippines, the result was democratic governments that still exist. In Nicaragua it resulted in the Sandinistas, who suspended civil liberties and established a Marxist-style dictatorship, and the shah was replaced by Khomeini.

In those cases, foreign policy was based on the principle of the lesser evil. Sometimes you ally with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even worse. During WWII, the US allied itself with Stalin to help defeat Hitler, an even greater threat. If you accept the lesser evil principle, it's easier to understand the US backing of Pinochet and Marcos. Marcos and Pinochet were both reliably anti-Soviet and the US attached more importance to that than the fact that they were basically dictatorial thugs. I'm not suggesting that the US was right in those cases, but that was the rationale.

 

[kennyj]

The following will prove the whole argument of "democracy, freedom, liberty..." is a complete joke as far as American foreign policy is concerned. It is no more than a pathetic excuse.

Today, they talk about "the worse of dictators who repressed his own people, killed them by the thousands" in relation to SH. Funny, if you look at the fact that only yesterday, they ended the reign of democraticly elected Salvador Allende and had him replaced by General Pinochet, who lead the country in a horribly repressive way for 17 years...

Next time you talk about terrorism killing thousands: look at your own actions. Next time you talk about wmd's killing hundreds of thousands: look at your own actions.

TRM.

Actually, you only tell half of the story. At the time, most, including the leaders of Chile's democratic parties, saw Allende as a radical Marxist intent on imposing a Castro-type dictatorship with the aid of Cuban-trained militia and Cuban weapons. That's why those leaders welcomed Allende's overthrow. They changed their attitude only after the junta maintained autocratic rule far longer than was warranted by the emergency.

 

[kennyj]

As usual TRM you exaggerate things enormously to suit your agenda, but Pinochet is not considered a "Yank hero." Here's a different perspective on what you've been spouting:


Demonized for foiling a left-wing plot
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
THE WASHINGTON TIMES - October 28, 1998

Augusto Pinochet brought three years of Marxist-led misrule in Chile to a bloody end in 1973 -- and the Western progressive intelligentsia never forgave him. If the Chilean strongman, now under arrest in London, had thrown neo-Nazis instead of communists, he would have earned the everlasting gratitude of western liberals, irrespective of how many thousands had been killed to establish his iron rule.
And if the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy had used his shameless demagoguery to expose suspected Hitler sympathizers, instead of Stalin's covert admirers, he would have been hailed as an all-American hero. Yet since the end of the Cold War, KGB files show that McCarthy exposed a veritable communist conspiracy to undermine and co-opt the U.S. government.

No one symbolizes the brutality of military rule in Latin America from the 1960s to the 1980s more than Gen. Pinochet, we are told by the dominant media culture. The success of his coup, they say, and the ensuing terror helped deepen conflicts in South and Central America by inspiring generals to believe they could resist democratic reform. Orwellian newspeak and Soviet-style disinformation have been resuscitated. Anti-anti-communism remains in fashion.

What has Fidel Castro been doing since 1959? Running a political charm school and minding his own business -- or practicing state terror and trying to foment revolution throughout South and Central America from the 1960s to the 1980s? Were the Contras resisting democratic reform in Nicaragua --or fighting the puppet Marxist regime of a Soviet satellite in the Caribbean?

Since institutional memories --as opposed to the selective pre-programmed kind -- are as rare as snowflakes in the Sahara, it might be useful to recall what the "democratically elected government" of Salvatore Allende (with 36 percent of the vote) inflicted on Chile before Gen. Pinochet decided to roll out the tanks. Gen. Pinochet did not suddenly decide the communists had to go. In fact, generals had participated in three of Allende's Cabinets and reluctantly agreed to act when they had proof positive of what the communists had in store for Chile. Communist agents were inciting rebellion inside the armed forces, which had been the proverbial straw that broke the dromedary's back in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965.

A Bolshevik-type insurrection was in the works. Some 14,000 foreign agitators had moved into Chile with a wink and a nod from Allende. They ranged from Cuban DGI agents, who were in charge of reorganizing Allende's security services, to Soviet, Czech and North Korean military instructors and arms suppliers, to hard-line Spanish and Portuguese Communist Party members. They were organizing revolutionary brigades to take on the Chilean army.

Regis Debray, a prominent French armchair revolutionary, friend of Mr. Castro and Che Guevara, saw Allende one month before Gen. Pinochet's 1973 coup. He wrote in France's leftist Nouvel Observateur: "We all knew that it was merely a tactical matter of winning time to organize, to arrange, and to coordinate the military formations of the parties that made up the Popular Unity government. It was a race against the clock."

And Gen. Pinochet won the race. A frustrated left has demonized him ever since -- and young journalists who know nothing about the period have parroted liberal distortions of history.

Shortly before Gen. Pinochet's coup, the Chilean Supreme Court and parliament ruled that Allende's government had repeatedly violated the constitution. Allende was a lifelong Marxist who had espoused Trotskyism in his youth. The lily-red revolutionaries saw him as a transition figure -- some saw him as another Kerensky -- to a full-fledged communist regime a la Cuba. His daughter Beatrice, known as Tati, was married to Luis de Ona, the Cuban DGI agent responsible for coordinating Che Guevara's ill-fated expedition to Bolivia.

Chile's communists prior to Allende's election in 1970 were hardly benign. They were the first outside the Warsaw Pact nations to applaud the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Gen. Pinochet's exactions did not take place in a vacuum. It was a life-and-death struggle throughout most of Latin America. Tupamaros and other urban terrorists and rural guerrillas were on the move from Montevideo to Managua. Gen. Pinochet fought fire with fire.

To head off the civil war the revolutionaries would have triggered if the plan outlined by Regis Debray had succeeded, Gen. Pinochet ordered the arrest of thousands. Many were tortured and killed, including foreign agitators. The deplorable excesses of Gen. Pinochet's rule averted a civil war that would have been a lot worse. One million were killed in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), and Francisco Franco was reviled for much the same reasons as Gen. Pinochet: He defeated the communists. KGB documents have now revealed that there was indeed a Stalinist attempt to take over Spain in the guise of a helping hand for the Spanish Republicans fighting Franco and his Nazi and fascist allies.

Both Franco and Gen. Pinochet went on to rebuild their ravaged economies and laid the foundations for a prosperous economy, the cornerstone for the solid, viable and enduring democracy that followed. A Third World basket case under Allende, Chile became an economic miracle under Gen. Pinochet.

Interestingly enough, Augusto Pinochet is hated by liberal establishments the world over for the same reason he is lionized in today's impoverished Russia.

On a recent visit to the United States, Russia's ousted liberal reformer Boris Nemtsov startled his American friends and admirers when he said Gen. Pinochet is the only foreign hero in post-communist Russia. Asked why, Mr. Nemtsov replied, "Because he threw out a communist regime, admittedly killing a few hundred people along the way, and established the foundations for genuine political democracy and a thriving market economy." Which is what all Russians long for, and which Castro-backed Allende had destroyed in Chile.

Liberals accuse the CIA of meddling in Chile and helping Gen. Pinochet's anti-Allende coup. The coup itself took the CIA by surprise, but it was certainly involved against Allende.

As it was in Italy in 1948 with lavish covert funding to prevent what otherwise would have been a "democratically elected" then Stalinist Communist Party taking over Italy.

Europe's Marxists and leftist intelligentsia and what Stalin once called "useful idiots" were hoping Allende's Chilean experiment would lead to similar ballot box communist victories.


© 1998 The Washington Times

 

[Kevrockcity]

There are others too. The US has backed dictators like Pinochet, Somoza, Marcos and the shah, but in each of those cases, the US eventually turned against the dictators and actively aided in their ouster. In Chile and the Philippines, the result was democratic governments that still exist. In Nicaragua it resulted in the Sandinistas, who suspended civil liberties and established a Marxist-style dictatorship, and the shah was replaced by Khomeini.

In those cases, foreign policy was based on the principle of the lesser evil. Sometimes you ally with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even worse. During WWII, the US allied itself with Stalin to help defeat Hitler, an even greater threat. If you accept the lesser evil principle, it's easier to understand the US backing of Pinochet and Marcos. Marcos and Pinochet were both reliably anti-Soviet and the US attached more importance to that than the fact that they were basically dictatorial thugs. I'm not suggesting that the US was right in those cases, but that was the rationale.

these are very good points.

 

[Jade]

you know, you guys are ruining the "stupid american" stereotype.Knock it off... before you deprive Red Machine of his favorite pass time.

 

[kkcbl]

There are others too. The US has backed dictators like Pinochet, Somoza, Marcos and the shah, but in each of those cases, the US eventually turned against the dictators and actively aided in their ouster. In Chile and the Philippines, the result was democratic governments that still exist. In Nicaragua it resulted in the Sandinistas, who suspended civil liberties and established a Marxist-style dictatorship, and the shah was replaced by Khomeini.

In those cases, foreign policy was based on the principle of the lesser evil. Sometimes you ally with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even worse. During WWII, the US allied itself with Stalin to help defeat Hitler, an even greater threat. If you accept the lesser evil principle, it's easier to understand the US backing of Pinochet and Marcos. Marcos and Pinochet were both reliably anti-Soviet and the US attached more importance to that than the fact that they were basically dictatorial thugs. I'm not suggesting that the US was right in those cases, but that was the rationale.

Relatively even-handed attempt to analysise American policy dictates tho' I have to take you to task regards "Marcos and the shah, but in each of those cases, the US eventually turned against the dictators and actively aided in their ouster. "

I don't think it was because of American actions that the 2 countries were rid of the Shah & Marcos!

On the contrary, the USA actually gave refuge to both the Shah & Marcos & refused to hand them back to their peoples despite numerous requests & court actions - in fact I believe that was one of the reasons for the American Embassy Siege in Iran.

Just imagine if Iran or the Phillipines had the same firepower as the USA - I wonder would they have given the same ultimums as the USA is now giving to harbourers of tyrants & terrorists?

Anyway kennyJ, I must congratulate you once again in trying to argue out differences of opinions rather than resort to name-calling or vulgarities - you give Americans ( I presume you're one! ) a good name!

 

[MrMarcello]

Can we start a separate thread that black lists the ABAs?

 

[Raoul]

Just ignore them if they irritate you.

 

[Snoeker]

Can we start a separate thread that black lists the ABAs?

Sure, in the US forum.

 

[Martin Henry]

Alot of these problems would evaporate instantly in there were more democracy and civility in the middle east.

Do you mean TRUE democracy?.........

Or do you (as I think) mean the only sort of democracy that the US would tolerate?......

Free Market Economy (an oxymoron by the way) type of democracy......

Anything that makes America richer is the only sort of democracy that the US would accept, this has been proved even before Chile in 1973. Indonesia and Guatemala are just two more examples that I can think of off the top of my head...

There are of course many more..........

 

[Raoul]

Do you mean TRUE democracy?.........

Or do you (as I think) mean the only sort of democracy that the US would tolerate?......

Free Market Economy (an oxymoron by the way) type of democracy......

Anything that makes America richer is the only sort of democracy that the US would accept, this has been proved even before Chile in 1973. Indonesia and Guatemala are just two more examples that I can think of off the top of my head...

There are of course many more..........

Yes I meant true democracy Martin.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Do you mean TRUE democracy?.........

Or do you (as I think) mean the only sort of democracy that the US would tolerate?......

Free Market Economy (an oxymoron by the way) type of democracy......

Anything that makes America richer is the only sort of democracy that the US would accept, this has been proved even before Chile in 1973. Indonesia and Guatemala are just two more examples that I can think of off the top of my head...

There are of course many more..........

as opposed to the tyrrannies that made russia, france, and china rich, like the baathists of iraq...

 

[Snoeker]

Various US administrations eg Reagan had strong ties to our Apartheid government. That was a true democracy too?

 

[MrMarcello]

Just ignore them if they irritate you.

Nah, they make me laugh. Good for comic relief.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Various US administrations eg Reagan had strong ties to our Apartheid government. That was a true democracy too?

yes, the u.s. was alone in the community in their "strong ties" to the apartheid government and never pressured it to democratize itself....

i'm sure all the international sanctions placed on south african regarding it's aparthied system had nothing to do with its collapse, either. you know, like the one passed in 1978 prohibiting loans to south africa by...the united states. or the compehensive anti-aparthied act passed in 1986, which severed limited trade and discouraged investors. wait, that was passed by the united states, too. but probably one of the biggest blows, you might remember, was when 350 foreign corporations sold off all their south african assets following the withdrawal of all short term credits in 1985. 200 of of those companies, you guessed it...were american.

 

[Snoeker]

yes, the u.s. was alone in the community in their "strong ties" to the apartheid government and never pressured it to democratize itself....

i'm sure all the international sanctions placed on south african regarding it's aparthied system had nothing to do with its collapse, either. you know, like the one passed in 1978 prohibiting loans to south africa by...the united states. or the compehensive anti-aparthied act passed in 1986, which severed limited trade and discouraged investors. wait, that was passed by the united states, too. but probably one of the biggest blows, you might remember, was when 350 foreign corporations sold off all their south african assets following the withdrawal of all short term credits in 1985. 200 of of those companies, you guessed it...were american.

Scoff if you must but the CIA provided valuable Intel for the Nats. And as far as the sanctions are concerned, they should have been cut in the late 60's already which would have forced the Nats (national Party) to relinquish power far earlier. All those companies, if they were so fecking principled, should have withdrawn earlier. In essence they only pulled out in the face of overwhelming international disapproval, but their presence propped up a Government way past its sell by date.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Scoff if you must but the CIA provided valuable Intel for the Nats. And as far as the sanctions are concerned, they should have been cut in the late 60's already which would have forced the Nats (national Party) to relinquish power far earlier. All those companies, if they were so fecking principled, should have withdrawn earlier. In essence they only pulled out in the face of overwhelming international disapproval, but their presence propped up a Government way past its sell by date.

overwhelming international disapproval? such as the british who had more companies in south africa in 1987 than the americans did? same with the west germans? why do you feel the need to call out the united states about south africa, yet you are silent about others' culpability, including the above countries as well that of the south african people, who are certainly by far the most to blame for apartheid. individually, the united states did more than any other western nation in its economic policy to end apartheid, yet you point fingers. why is this? should apartheid have ended way before it did? certainly. should other nations have been more proactive in this? certainly. should the (white) south african people accepted such a policy and held onto to it as long as they did. certainly.

why does the united states bear more of a responsibility for apartheid than other nations that did a whole lot less to end it?

 

[Snoeker]

overwhelming international disapproval? such as the british who had more companies in south africa in 1987 than the americans did? same with the west germans? why do you feel the need to call out the united states about south africa, yet you are silent about others' culpability, including the above countries as well that of the south african people, who are certainly by far the most to blame for apartheid. individually, the united states did more than any other western nation in its economic policy to end apartheid, yet you point fingers. why is this? should apartheid have ended way before it did? certainly. should other nations have been more proactive in this? certainly. should the (white) south african people accepted such a policy and held onto to it as long as they did. certainly.

why does the united states bear more of a responsibility for apartheid than other nations that did a whole lot less to end it?

Naturally there were more Brits, its an ex colony. I only mentioned the US as that was the context of the discussion, UK was also involved, heavily, I concur.

Its not as black and white as you propose, there are many shades of grey and complexities that you probably wouldn't get as you're not here (really, there's a mindset and situation that is WAY different from anywhere else) , re: culpability.

The so called responsibility is because the US government always wants to come off as the Land of the free and the bestest country on earth but tend to be hypocrites in many things. not least foreign policy.

 

[Kevrockcity]

Naturally there were more Brits, its an ex colony. I only mentioned the US as that was the context of the discussion, UK was also involved, heavily, I concur.

Its not as black and white as you propose, there are many shades of grey and complexities that you probably wouldn't get as you're not here (really, there's a mindset and situation that is WAY different from anywhere else) , re: culpability.

The so called responsibility is because the US government always wants to come off as the Land of the free and the bestest country on earth but tend to be hypocrites in many things. not least foreign policy.

i stand by what i said. the united states did more than any other western nation. do i wish we could have taken a stand earlier. yes. is the u.s. to blame for giving aparthied a life line? no. did other nations, most notably a couple of previously mentioned european heavies, act in quite a more irresponsible manner. yes.

the u.s. is not perfect. i never said it was and anyone who does say that is wrong. but the united stated been a lot more right than wrong - historically, i'll take its track record over any other western nation.

 

[Snoeker]

i stand by what i said. the united states did more than any other western nation. do i wish we could have taken a stand earlier. yes. is the u.s. to blame for giving aparthied a life line? no. did other nations, most notably a couple of previously mentioned european heavies, act in quite a more irresponsible manner. yes.

the u.s. is not perfect. i never said it was and anyone who does say that is wrong. but the united stated been a lot more right than wrong - historically, i'll take its track record over any other western nation.

Hey, thats your opinion and you've formed it based on your research etc. I largely agree on what you say and on the minor points we agree to disagree

 

[kennyj]

I don't think it was because of American actions that the 2 countries were rid of the Shah & Marcos!

On the contrary, the USA actually gave refuge to both the Shah & Marcos & refused to hand them back to their peoples despite numerous requests & court actions - in fact I believe that was one of the reasons for the American Embassy Siege in Iran.

You may be right about not actively aiding the deposition of the the Shah. I'm not sure, but I know that they wouldn't actively aid Khomeini. But at the very least, the US did nothing to prevent his ouster, which more or less would make it happen. Prior to the end of his regime (around 1975), the Shah had nationalized the oil fields and cost the US, GB and others billions, so the US was not on such good terms with him. I think that the US allowed him to stay because he was dying and he did die (I think) shortly after he got here. I think that the hostage crisis was probably due to the US helping to put him into power in the first place and the Shah was probably dead by then.

Marcos was actually elected and re-elected, but imposed martial law for an extremely long period, and looted the country. The US got away from Marcos because they saw no future in supporting a president who had become very unpopular, had gained worldwide notoriety and was unable to steer an economy suitable for vital American corporate interests. I think that the US did support Aquino's widow, but it was close to Marcos's end. Marcos fled to Hawaii, but I think that he died right before they were ready to try him.

Admittedly, neither instance was a very proud moment for US foreign policy, and I wish that the US hadn't done some of the things that it did. I think the US has moved away from supporting oppressive regimes for the most part, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (and, in a way, China), but today other parts of the world seem to have no problem with such dictators remaining in power.

 

[kkcbl]

You may be right about not actively aiding the deposition of the the Shah. I'm not sure, but I know that they wouldn't actively aid Khomeini. But at the very least, the US did nothing to prevent his ouster, which more or less would make it happen. Prior to the end of his regime (around 1975), the Shah had nationalized the oil fields and cost the US, GB and others billions, so the US was not on such good terms with him. I think that the US allowed him to stay because he was dying and he did die (I think) shortly after he got here. I think that the hostage crisis was probably due to the US helping to put him into power in the first place and the Shah was probably dead by then.

Marcos was actually elected and re-elected, but imposed martial law for an extremely long period, and looted the country. The US got away from Marcos because they saw no future in supporting a president who had become very unpopular, had gained worldwide notoriety and was unable to steer an economy suitable for vital American corporate interests. I think that the US did support Aquino's widow, but it was close to Marcos's end. Marcos fled to Hawaii, but I think that he died right before they were ready to try him.

Admittedly, neither instance was a very proud moment for US foreign policy, and I wish that the US hadn't done some of the things that it did. I think the US has moved away from supporting oppressive regimes for the most part, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (and, in a way, China), but today other parts of the world seem to have no problem with such dictators remaining in power.

A more reasoned & accurate analysis this time round, kennyJ.

But like I said, at least you're prepared to argue out your case unlike some of your more smug Bush-like fellow Americans!

 

[Kevrockcity]

A more reasoned & accurate analysis this time round, kennyJ.

But like I said, at least you're prepared to argue out your case unlike some of your more smug Bush-like fellow Americans!

smug? do you refer to anyone that posts on these boards or just, you know, general smug americans? because i don't see a whole lot of americans around here posting threads calling people of entire nationalities stupid...

 

[kkcbl]

smug? do you refer to anyone that posts on these boards or just, you know, general smug americans? because i don't see a whole lot of americans around here posting threads calling people of entire nationalities stupid...

Just read the comments above for your answers - unless you were arsed to read them b4 you came bashing in....

 

[Kevrockcity]

Just read the comments above for your answers - unless you were arsed to read them b4 you came bashing in....

yeah, i find the smugness to mostly come from your posts and those that agree with you. feel free to cite examples of the opposite, you can be arsed to do so...

 

[cD]

overwhelming international disapproval? such as the british who had more companies in south africa in 1987 than the americans did? same with the west germans? why do you feel the need to call out the united states about south africa, yet you are silent about others' culpability, including the above countries as well that of the south african people, who are certainly by far the most to blame for apartheid. individually, the united states did more than any other western nation in its economic policy to end apartheid, yet you point fingers. why is this? should apartheid have ended way before it did? certainly. should other nations have been more proactive in this? certainly. should the (white) south african people accepted such a policy and held onto to it as long as they did. certainly.

why does the united states bear more of a responsibility for apartheid than other nations that did a whole lot less to end it?

The South African govt was definately the most culpable party, but the fact is that the US did not for a long time put pressure on the SA govt to end apartheid......despite numerous UN recommendations. While it would be wrong to say that the US didnt play a part eventually to end apartheid, it was much later than it should have been. And Im not saying that the European countries were much better in this respect.

 

[Snoeker]

The South African govt was definately the most culpable party, but the fact is that the US did not for a long time put pressure on the SA govt to end apartheid......despite numerous UN recommendations. While it would be wrong to say that the US didnt play a part eventually to end apartheid, it was much later than it should have been. And Im not saying that the European countries were much better in this respect.

Nice to see that there is a precedent for ignoring UN Recommendations

 

[Kevrockcity]

The South African govt was definately the most culpable party, but the fact is that the US did not for a long time put pressure on the SA govt to end apartheid......despite numerous UN recommendations. While it would be wrong to say that the US didnt play a part eventually to end apartheid, it was much later than it should have been. And Im not saying that the European countries were much better in this respect.

i'm not sure i understand this argument. the u.n. condemned apartheid and passed resolutions on it, including trade embargos. the u.n. isn't just some organization - it is one which the united states is part of, and as a member of the security council was instrumental in the passage of these resolutions. the united states was also the major force in enforcing and punshing countries that broke the 1949 cocom embargo. so i'm not sure what specific recommendations that the u.n. made to the u.s. specifically were ignored. however, i certainly agree with you in spirit that all countries should have been more proactive in ending apartheid earlier, the united states included.