The President lied to start war

Plenty of verbage yourself, but once again, zero substantiation nor demonstrable research whatsoever. LOL!

You go ahead and award yourself victory points, though. God forbid you should have to confront the reality of the world and Washington's longrunning roster of duplicities when you can more easily get your ideological fix from The Sun or Daily "hate" Mail.

 

You mean verbiage, you windbag twit? 0H 5H!T 5orry 0tt3r! i cou1dn't r35i5t!

I've been called a Guardianista by Balbus (albeit tongue in cheek) and now I am a Sun Reader. Anyone else care to speculate?

 

To my knowledge, neither Taiwan nor South Korea had the history of colonialism nor the sustained guerrilla resistance that characterized Vietnam. As Balbus has noted, South Korea implemented basic political and economic reforms that helped avert a grassroots insurgency. Such efforts were consistently thwarted by the South Vietnamese regime.

First of all, as I have noted repeatedly, we were responsible for a majority of the bloodshed in Vietnam. Second, democracy has emerged in Chile in spite of Pinochet, not because of him. Allende was elected by the Chilean people. Are you seriously suggesting that we overthrew him and imposed a homicidal military junta in order to protect the Chileans from themselves?

 

LOL> PB once again shows how desperate he is to maintain his sad state of misinformed denial by seeking out any jot or tittle he may find (parents keep a close eye on your wee commas) to provide himself fuel for continued derision.

Military.com would indeed be more your speed. No need to hear anything other than the latest jingoistic group jingle and no bothersome research needed beyond the latest pronouncements of the Fox News pundit of the day. You'd be right at home.

 

Korea was colonised by the Japanese early in the century, and Kim Il Sung was a "war hero" who fought the Japanese. Taiwan was colonised by the Dutch and the Japanese. Notably, both of these countries were bordered either by the sea or relatively easily defended land borders. Vietnam, on the other hand, had the misfortune of sharing a massive, undefendable borders with "neutral" countries (i.e. wide open highways) through which hundreds of thousands of "popular" communists could enter the country.

Yes they did, but they remained a brutal military dictatorship and US client state for decades, the sort of government which would be universally hated in this forum. Can anyone picture Hipforums standing up for the 1950's era South Korean government?

Funny how Chile is a "homicidal military junta" whereas North Vietnam is just North Vietnam. I think Pinochet would have had to try a lot harder to live up the the standard of homicidal military juntas set by Uncle Ho.

True Allende was elected, unlike Uncle Ho or any successive Vietnamese communist leader. I'm not asking you to support the overthrow of Allende. I'm simply pointing out that the revered Uncle Ho and his communist successors brought economic ruin and decades of totalitarianism to Vietnam. Pinochet brought about 17 years of repression yet his departure saw an immediate return to a democracy which inherited the healthiest economy in latin america.

Perhaps you think the success of Chile was an "accident" which Pinochet never intended, just as the disaster of Vietnam's post 1975 human rights and economy was an "accident" which the patriotic communists never intended.

The Chileans sure got a better deal out of their dictator, yet Uncle Ho will always be the hero whereas Pinochet will always be the villain.

 

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I personally think the Korean War was justified. Unlike Korea, the Vietnam War was more of a counterinsurgency than a defense against foreign invasion.

I don't need to defend "Uncle Ho" in order to oppose the US atrocities in Vietnam that you keep justifying.

You don't think that the war itself or our prolonged (and vindictive) economic sanctions had any part in the impovershment of Vietnam? Have things not improved since we normalized relations in the last decade?

Again, I'm not praising Ho Chi Minh. I'm simply noting that our crimes in Vietnam far surpassed his. It is meaningless to compare him with Pinochet, though I wager that both probably killed roughly the same percentage of their fellow countrymen. Furthermore, both cases are prime examples of US meddling in other countries' internal affairs, with horrific consequences.

 

The reason I’ve asked if you are ok is because this is so unlike you, doing angry text, getting at peoples spelling, and awarding yourself argument points. These just don’t seem like you.

I believe that the Freerepublic forum was one of those I tried to talk on a long time before I found Hipforums, I tried a few sites where Americans held out but all I got was abuse and an unwillingness to debate, then a banning. The thing is I would like to talk to more right wingers on there views but many times it becomes clear to me and then them that their ideas are not thought through and so don’t stand up. On right wing forums I’ve usually been banned way before that time. Here they often come abusive or run away.

I hang out here because I can get another perspective of Americans than I read from places like Freerepublic and Townhall and here there are those with right wing views that are actually willing to test them in discussion.

As to my bias I have never hidden it and I think it is rather obvious, I’m a left winger and member of the UK’s Green Party. I make no secret that I think the two major parties in the US are of the right and only in such a right wing environment at latter day America could something as silly as libertarianism be taken seriously.

I actually like many of the right wingers coming here and think the place it better for their presence. But just because they have right wing views and outlooks it stands to reason that they are more likely to clash with my own left wing views and outlook. As I’ve said I think of you as a good debater, usually clear headed and often gifted with perception, for that reason I often take more note of what you are saying than I do one of the time wasters.

**

 

US and Iraq



Arms suppliers to Iraq

As the table clearly shows, the overwhelming majority of the arms imported by Iraq during the 1970s, when the regime was building up the armies which were to attack Iran in 1980, were supplied by the Soviet Union and its satellites, principally Czechoslovakia. The only substantial western arms supplier to Iraq was France.

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988 (briefly also supporting Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair and occasionally condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

France continued to be a major arms supplier to Iraq until 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and all legal arms transfers to Iraq ended. With the fall of the Soviet Union and of the communist regimes in its former satellites, and the alienation of Egypt from Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait, France became Iraq's principal diplomatic ally. This helps explain much of the antagonism between France and the United States over Iraq during the years between the first and second Gulf Wars.



Political implications

During the controversy over the April 2003invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, it was frequently alleged the United States had supported the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq during the period of the Iran-Iraq War between 1980 and 1988. The figures above suggest that the United States was a relatively minor supplier of conventional weapons, and did not play a major role in arming Iraq for its attack on Iran. However, the US was officially neutral during the Iran-Iraq war, and the question of whether any such arms sales were ethical remains controversial. Those who allege US support for Iraq may not be referring solely to arms sales: the US also supported Iraq (though not necessarily the Iraqi military itself) through various financial and political means, and may have sold dual use technology to Iraq; see the external link "Shaking Hands with Saddam".

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

Shaking Hands with Saddam

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/



**

Vietnam

You are falling into that mindset I mentioned in a pervious post. You compare Taiwan and South Korean regimes with that of South Vietnam but a comparison based totally on all three being ‘odious regimes’ just doesn’t hold up, as pointed out by Huck the circumstances were different.

I think the US led defence of South Korea was right. As to American involvement, they had actually defeated the colonial power there, the Japanese and the US was seen as a liberator. In Vietnam it supported the colonial power the French even when the Vietnamese generally saw them as collaborator with the Japanese. It was also widely believed that the US had promised the Vietnamese (and Ho) independence for helping them fight the Japanese so when they then didn’t many saw the US as untrustworthy and some even as oppressors.

In Korea the northern Communist were not popular. The invasion was also countered under the UN it was not basically unilateral operation (for example the UK stayed out).

**



Remember what I said about the blurring of lines and the either/or mentality.

"what did Pinochet do compared to what the Vietnamese communists did"

To me they were two brutal regimes, did one torture more than the other or execute more than the other or did ones economic reforms cause more misery than the other, was one ‘communist’ and the other not? Are you really arguing that Pinochet’s regimes crimes are less important because he wasn’t communist? But again a comparison of the circumstances and histories of the two countries do not compare.

As to the two countries prosperity. Chile was an industrialised country that had a coup. Vietnam was mainly an agriculturally based economy, that had been under a colonial power the French. The Japanese had invaded it many Vietnamese fought that occupation, then there was a war of independence against the French. Then there was a war involving the US who I believe dropped more munitions on that small country than were dropped in WWII and this war also caused the death of some 3 to 4 million Vietnamese. Then there were the US led sanctions and a war against the Khemer Rouge.

There’re also a couple of unknowables, what would Vietnam be like today if the US had decided to support Vietnamese independence in 1945 and what Chile would be like today if Allende had stayed in power?

"Nonetheless, for the left Vietnam was a victory for justice and Chile is simply another example of American evil"

Actually I find the outcomes equally sad, and they just might have been avoidable if US government polices had been different.

"American evil"

Remember what I said about some Americans believing in yes/no, good/evil, etc. I hope you are not doing this, I mean does criticising certain policies and actions of US politicians, parties and governments, make you think I believe America is ‘evil’? Isn’t that a bit silly and extreme?

**

Point look to your argument and see that you haven’t taken in what I have said.

The US’s myopic ‘anti-Communist’ based policy blinded it to any other concerns or possibilities. In Vietnam all it wanted to do was bring down Ho and the communists, the concerns of the people were secondary, the people wanted Independence, but the US couldn’t offer them that because it would meaning letting in Ho and the communist. So the US had to take the role of colonial power it could offer the people little but a corrupt and often brutal puppet government and very little in the way of change this only fuelled the Vietnamese desire for Independence.

In Chile was the only alternative to an elected left-wing coalition government a brutal military junta? Also as in Guatemala US financial interests were also a factor in influencing US policy.

 

I have already pointed out that it is silly to compare the economies of communist Vietnam and Pinochet’s Chile. But it should also be noted that many today don’t think the economic performance under Pinochet was that good and when other factors are taken into account such as the social and environmental coss it was in fact very bad for Chile.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm



http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/086.html

 

Is anything as enjoyably as deleting a long post just as you are finishing it? Ahhhh....

First of all, the only reason the Korean war was UN approved was a historical fluke. The Soviets were, stupidly, boycotting the UN in protest for recognising Taiwan. Thus the Korean war tells us nothing about multilateralism and the UN's ability to stop aggression.

Secondly, I have never said Pinochet is better than Vietnamese communists because Chile is richer. I have said that Chile benefitted from Pinochet's policies whereas it would be difficult to show that Vietnam benefitted from Communism in any way. The Vietnamese paid a far higher price than Chile and got nothing in return. Yet Pinochet is the bad guy and Vietnamese communists are sympathetic revolutionary heroes.

And lets look at what Allende brought Chile. With 36% of the vote he confiscated property and nationalised (stole) entire industries, which predictably led to collapsing productivity and falling foreign investment. Huge spending increases led to hyperinflation which led to price controls which led to shortages in basic commodities. National strikes followed. This is the populist hero of left wing mythology?

And I think it is pretty easy to claim that "some people" say that Chile's economic performance isn't "that great" but I find that a pretty halfhearted attempt to critcise. Some people are just uncomfortable with the fact free market policies worked.

 

First of all, I find it amusing that you portray industrial robber-barons as victims of "theft." Second, a great deal of the economic turmoil you describe was orchestrated Allende's political enemies, with the help of the CIA. Christopher Hitchens provides a good synopsis of our sordid dealings in both Vietnam and Chile here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html

 

Actually your link entensively discusses how Kissinger knowingly participated in the subversion of democracy in Chile and how he know about all the political murders orchestrated by Pinochet's regime.

Unfortunately that's not what's being debated here.

It is pretty much an article of faith in this forum that the only reason socialist economies fail is because "enemies of the regime" are conspiring against them.

That's why leftists wonder where all the investors have gone after they confiscate businesses without compensation.

That's why leftists wonder why state control is always accompanied by falling productivity.

That's why leftists wonder why out of control spending increases lead to hyperinflation.

That's why leftists wonder why price controls substitute hyperinflation for shortages.

That's why the vicious circle of spiralling wage increases to match the hyperinflation combined with empty shops leads to strikes.

Can't be because socialist economics has never worked anywhere. Nope, must be the CIA foiling collectivisation in Vietnam and price controls in Chile, etc etc.

 

It also mentions Richard Helms’ own notes of his instructions from Nixon to “make the economy scream.” Some of the specific methods used are discussed here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/ChileCoup_USHand.html

“Free” market policies promoted by global financial institutions and trade agreements don’t exactly have a stellar track record in this regard:

http://www.global-poverty.org/PolicyAdvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/gereports/00D3C4F30C7E423E88256E7F000CB054/$file/One%20Step%20Forward.pdf

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/wvususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_trade_tradeatwhatcost

 

As I said before, leftists always seem mystified as to why investment dries up right after they conduct a populist campaign of property theft. Must be some shadowy international conspiracy.

I would question whether historians have been debating this for decades, as the leftist policies followed by Allende would have the same impact anywhere. But the fact is all your report is able to dig up are things like cancellation of "livestock improvement credits" from the World Bank - denial of which is hardly likely to make any economy scream, and in the same post you turn around and link to articles blaming the World Bank for harmful lending policies! Ain't it fun to have it both ways?

 

The CIA's tactics of destablizing the Allende government were quite elaborate:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/CIA_Allende_LS.html

As for international lending policies, the main point of the "Two Steps Back" article is the harmful strings that are attached to Third World loans. The case of Chile illustrates this perfectly: countries that dare to assert control over their economies are punished severely.

 

I still think the US (UN) involvement in the Korean war was right, for all the reason I gave.

Are you arguing that since the democratically elected party of another sovereign state is not to be allowed to have an independent economic policy, if that policy is not one the US government of the time likes?

I notice you don’t actually refute the claims made in the articles I gave that do not give such a rosy picture of Pinochets economic (or rather the ‘Chicago boy’s) policies and there disastrous impact on Chile.

**

It is pretty much an article of faith in this forum that the only reason socialist economies fail is because "enemies of the regime" are conspiring against them.


As I have pointed out in my critic, that you seem to accept, the US and many Americans see any type of left wing thought as basically the same as ‘evil communism’. This has meant that US governments (with the tacit support of many American people) have tried to undermine ‘leftist’ governments and movements wherever they might be. This usually meant allying themselves with the more right wing conservative elements within those societies, those that were likely to loose out from any economic or social reforms in other words the economic and political elite. As long as a system is run in their favour then these elements will support the status quo against any reforms.

The history of political thought has more often as not being based on the fight between those trying to defend an established order from those wishing for reforms. Nobles / kings, bourgesoise / aristocracy, trade unions / employers, environmentalist / polluter. The demand for wider enfranchisement or say in the running of the environment in which people live not just being about political power but has always had a economic element.

In the latter half of the 20th century the anti-Communist policies of the US led it into interventions. Some groups knew that if reformers threatened their established order this simplistic paranoia about ‘communist’ could be manipulated to assist them.

In such places as Guatemala and Chile this was a factor in what happened.

**

As to the supposed strengths and weakness of left and right wing economic practice, again you seem to be expressing that either/or simplistic mentality. The way you often present your case seems to imply you see little difference between ‘leftist’ economic thought of any type and those of extreme communism and that the only alternative to that must be some extreme form of lassie faire economic system?

My viewpoint would be a calculation of peoples quality of life. I mean who should benefit from the a nations or even the worlds economy, shouldn’t it be everyone in one or on it? If I see the gap between rich and poor growing I think that economy is failing, if large numbers of people have no or little access to health care, I think that economy is failing, if I see an increase in pollution I think that economy is failing.

There are socialist elements in European systems and left wing political theory is not dead, also the US is not a shining example of the free market and what it can do.

**

As to Vietnam and Chile -

In Vietnam the US sided with the established colonial system basically against reform the policy was one of defeating ‘communism’ as such it was offering the Vietnamese little in the way of real reforms. One of these aspirations was for independence from colonial rule again the US seemed unable to deliver this.

I believe that if it had understood these things it might have understood the need for a different approach, but if it had I don’t think it would have gone there at all. It would have seen that it would have been easier to have had influence in Indochina by helping Ho than it would have been to fight him. As it was a simplistic policy and an arrogant belief in their economic and military power dictated their actions.

In Chile the situation was very different it had had its bloody war of independence but by 1970 there was a struggle between economic groupings and interests. The wealthy and powerful wishing to hold onto the status quo and reformers wishing to bring about social and economic change. US companies had financial interests in Chile (as it did in Guatemala and Iran) and it is obvious that US policy favoured the right wing conservative elements over the progressive forces. You catalogue Allende’s problems but it should be remembered that in the 1973 congressional elections his coalition increased its number of seats by six, and it is still unclear what the plebiscite called for later in September would have resulted in since the coup stopped it taking place.

We know what the outcome for the US’s simplistic anti-Communist policy were what I would ask is that it doesn’t make the same mistakes in having a simplistic anti-terror policy.

 

Huck,these 10,000 word essays by thirdworldtraveller don't really say much. All your article says is that

That's the sum total of the vast conspiracy they came up with to explain the catastrophic economic performance under Allende. Now as I said before, blocking livestock improvement credits and development loans cannot cause an economic collapse. As in every previous example, this deliberately fails to acknowledge that Chile could, and did, get financing and investment from anywhere. In fact, even the IMF kept lending. To quote from http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19740101faessay10095-p30/paul-e-sigmund/the-invisible-blockade-and-the-overthrow-of-allende.html

Some blockade!What's also interesting, and which thirdworldtraveller will never mention, is that Carter also cut off US-backed loans to Chile under Pinochet.

So on the one hand you are saying development loans are bad, then you are complaining that the US cut them off for Allende, then you aren't mentioning that they also got cut off for Pinochet. There is no consistency to this argument at all.

Hyperinflationary policies and asset confiscation do not need CIA help to lead to reduced investment and financial institution instability. If the largest foreign investments in the country have just been nationalised with total compensation of zero, would you be rushing to invest? Would you be rushing to extend credit for spare parts, or indeed for anything? Because Chile was never physically blockaded, they just found that mysteriously, after massive asset theft and the implementation of hyperinflationary policies, nobody wanted to lend them money any more, and the left assumes that is therefore a conpiracy. The only person that made Chile's economy scream in Allende.

But restless after reading all these slanted Allende apologies, I thought I would read other parts of thirdworldtraveller. And look at this great quote I found!

Are you surprised? I'm not. And Balbus says I see communists hiding under every bed. Well, I'm quoting your website, you tell me how that's unfair.

 

Also the action in Chile should be seen in the context of the longterm policy of the US toward Latin America for instance in 1929 the Undersecretary of State Robert Olds said of Central America -

"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall" --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds ​

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

As the list at the end of the link shows US policy toward Latin America was not just based on supposed security it was always commercial. The Panamanian railroad then cannel may have had strategic value for the US but their interests were also commercial. When US troops helped to put down worker revolting for better conditions in Cuba it had as much to do with commercial interests as it did with having a stable neighbour. The fact was left wing political philosophy was seen as a threat to US commercial interests and wherever it arose in the Americas the US would try to curtail its activities. But where something could be used as an excuse to intervene to protect established interests it was possible to use it as a reason to open new areas to US commercial interests.

The fact is that US involvement in the Chile of 1973 was not contrary to this long term US policy or precedent.

**

 

I started this post to show that US politicians can manipulate information to take that step toward war, the inference being that this still goes on. Another idea expressed here is that the US elite can use the approach of many Americans to overly simplify problems to their advantage.

I have argued that the manipulation of information was used to convince Americans to become involved in Vietnam. That the policy was overly simplistic not taking the Vietnamese history and aspirations into account. I have also tried to show how the use of a supposed ‘good aim’ was used and was seen by many Americans give further justification for action and made certain actions that they may otherwise have objected to more acceptable on the grounds that the ends justified the means.

This sounds very familiar?

The Iraq invasion was sold to the American people on the grounds of a threat from WMD’s that didn’t exist.

As I’ve pointed out before the situation in Iraq was a lot more complex than seemed to be understood by those wanting the action. It seemed to me that it was over reliant on the belief that being ‘anti-Saddam’ would be enough. It is one of the themes of the Vietnam war that many Americans went to the country believing that they were saving the people from ‘communism’ but once there found that they were not treated as saviours but that many Vietnamese didn’t seem to want them there or like them. This caused a lot of resentment and a mistrust of the people they were there to protect and help. Increasingly the reports coming out of Iraq are of disillusioned and resentful soldiers that don’t believe they are being treated as these peoples ‘liberators’.

 

Balbus, it would be a lot more interesting to hear whether you would have supported intervention in Korea if Russia had showed up and voted No. Would you have shrugged your shoulders and let South Korea be conquered by a totalitarian state rather than defile the sanctity of the UN?

I entirely reject you criticisms of Pinochet's economic accomplishments. These essays are merely sour grapes from those who would rather swallow broken glass than concede that free market policies have accomplished anything anywhere. Chile has the strongest, healthiest economy in Latin America. The proof of Pinochet's policies is that when democracy returned and a left leaning Lagos, government was elected, virtually no major element of the Chicago platform was changed.

In fact I think the primary reason Pinochet is such a hate figure for the left is not because of his human rights record, which hardly made him stand out in the region let alone the world, but because his chicago school policies acheived so much.