It is a long shot!

[MidGe]

You do live in cuckoo's land. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

From the same source you cited:



[ QUOTE ]
Efforts by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after his 1970 election are documented in U.S. materials declassified during the Clinton administration. For example, a formal instruction was issued on 16 October 1970 to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden...",

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
You do live in cuckoo's land. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

From the same source you cited:



[ QUOTE ]
Efforts by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after his 1970 election are documented in U.S. materials declassified during the Clinton administration. For example, a formal instruction was issued on 16 October 1970 to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden...",

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[/ QUOTE ]

.... none of which supports your claim of an "assassination of Allende by the US"

It's not rocket science, mate. You made a false claim. Your false claim appears to have no evidence to support it. In fact, the evidence you provide doesn't even mention an assassination.

To paraphrase someone:
"My answer is that you should first of all, admit your huge mistake on this issue, and admit to your lies to make a political point were it is. Then maybe, we need talk reparations?"

[MidGe]

I think you have not given any evidence to what you call the suicide of Allende. I have given sufficient, and there is heaps more, circumstantial evidence that the CIA was involved.

Also Allende is only one of the many well documented interference by the US of the legitimate sovereignty of other countries.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have not given any evidence to what you call the suicide of Allende.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende says it was suicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Salvador_Allende says it was suicide

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3089846.stm says it was suicide

http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij..._allende.shtml says it was suicide

[ QUOTE ]
I have given sufficient,

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you have not. You have not provided any evidence that it was an assasination. Your "source" doesn't even refer to his death!

[ QUOTE ]
and there is heaps more, circumstantial evidence that the CIA was involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which has also not been provided or linked to by you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also Allende is only one of the many well documented interference by the US of the legitimate sovereignty of other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? You falsely claimed that Allende was assassinated. This remains false. You should stop being a lying liar who lies.

[MidGe]

Yes Josem keep to your naive beliefs.

I am not interested in a link war, I prefer a debate. but you don't seem to get that.

To put an end to your meaningless linking, on Google, I get 322,000+ hits for "Allende murder" and only 266,000 for "Allende suicide" and many of the latter links dispute the "official" version that it was suicide.

I guess you would be taken in by the known and disgraced liars (Nixon and Pinochet). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I have given sufficient, and there is heaps more, circumstantial evidence that the CIA was involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have just re-read the link that you provided as "evidence."

In the heading of the very article that you provided, it says "While the Nixon administration was clearly gratified by the Chilean coup of 1973, in which Allende died and Augusto Pinochet rose to power, several separate investigations (including the Church Commission Report) have concluded that it is likely that the U.S. had no direct role in bringing it about"

Then, in the same article that you provide as "evidence" of assassination is repeated statements that there is no evidence of US involvement in the coup, let alone in his murder.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not interested in a link war, I prefer a debate. but you don't seem to get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you say you want to have a debate when you are a lying liar who lies? Allende was not assasinated. You ask for evidence that it was suicide, and I provide a bundle of reputable sources - even the BBC and New York Times have written about his suicide. By contrast, you provide not one credible source that it was suicide, and the single link you do provide says that there is no evidence the US Government was involved! Like, wtf?!?

There is nothing to debate on this point. Allende committed suicide. It's like arguing over the sun rising. It happened this morning. It's not up for debate.

[ QUOTE ]
To put an end to your meaningless linking, on Google, I get 322,000+ hits for "Allende murder" and only 266,000 for "Allende suicide" and many of the latter links dispute the "official" version that it was suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

You get 322,000 hits for "Allende murder" because there is a book called "The murder of Allende" - of the first ten responses on the search "Allende murder", half refer to that book, and another one is a review of a ficional movie.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: Which of the following would you like the Iraqi government to ask the US-forces to do:
- 37% withdraw within 6 months
- 34% withdraw within 1 year
- 20% withdraw within 2 years
---------------------------------
= 91%
- 09% only reduce as the security situation improves


[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably, we can interpret the 37% of Iraqis as wanting US forces to leave immediately. The other 63% don't want an immediate withdrawal, but rather, a withdrawal at some stage in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

it stays the same, right? 91% want US forces to leave iraq in 2 years.

[ QUOTE ]
So, why would 63% want US forces to stay for the time being but to leave later? I think it is safe to assume that they feel that the US forces are currently doing a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

is this a joke or you just can't accept the results of the poll?

Question: Do you think the US military in Iraq is currently:
- 21% a stabilizing force
- 78% provoking more conflict than it is preventing

does these answers give you an opinion that they feel that the US forces are currently doing a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also regarding the question of democracy, Iran would be shining in the company of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (and most of other countries in the region).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like a fight over who is the tallest midget is in the circus. Regardless of who wins, they're still pretty damn short.

[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree. still, nobody is demanding any changes in the worst dictatorships, while they do demand changes for some slightly more democratic regimes.
double standards or just another myths about noble reasons to achieve something else?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should accept US never wanted democracy in the Middle East countries as they can work much better with dictatorships.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is right. The idea that the US has a better relationship with dictatorships (eg, old Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) than democracies (Israel, India, Japan, France) is rediculous. You can't seriously mean this, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, this doesn't mean they would want a real democracies in the middle east. mentioning Japan or France or Israel here is ridiculous. do you believe it would be in US interest to bring a democracy in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or is it better as it is now?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My answer is that the administration should first of all, admit its huge mistake in the Iraq war, and admit to its lies to get the country were it is. Then maybe, we need talk reparations?

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the oft-repeated maxims of the left is that there were "lies" to go to war. To use a poker metaphor, if you put your opponent on a hand (or even a range of hands), and turn out to be wrong, you're not a liar. Sure, you made an incorrect judgement, but in a world of incomplete information, you can only make decisions on the basis of what you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

starting a war where hundred thousands die with millions are refugees and complete destabilization of the wider region is something else than poker game.
it seems you doubt in US intelligence. i wouldn't. they knew exactly what will happen.

you might be surprised how good dick chaney's predictions in 1994 were regarding the situation in iraq in case of occupation and removing saddam.
Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire: Chaney '94

'Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? '

but then with PNAC something has changed. read what was the prime subject at the first and the second National Security Meeting ten days after Bush's inauguration. You, re right - it was focused on Iraq with regime change as a central topic. good article by by Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I am particularly gullible, but I believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together to advance their common interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you might find some very good explanation in the article above to see how wrong you are here.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do live in cuckoo's land. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

From the same source you cited:



[ QUOTE ]
Efforts by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after his 1970 election are documented in U.S. materials declassified during the Clinton administration. For example, a formal instruction was issued on 16 October 1970 to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden...",

[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[/ QUOTE ]

.... none of which supports your claim of an "assassination of Allende by the US"

It's not rocket science, mate. You made a false claim. Your false claim appears to have no evidence to support it. In fact, the evidence you provide doesn't even mention an assassination.

To paraphrase someone:
"My answer is that you should first of all, admit your huge mistake on this issue, and admit to your lies to make a political point were it is. Then maybe, we need talk reparations?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic example of moving the goal posts.

Midge's point was that the US policy towards a sovereign, democratic state was to remove the elected leader who Washington didn't want.

Which exactly contradicts your stance on US foreign policy.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes Josem keep to your naive beliefs.

I am not interested in a link war, I prefer a debate. but you don't seem to get that.

To put an end to your meaningless linking, on Google, I get 322,000+ hits for "Allende murder" and only 266,000 for "Allende suicide" and many of the latter links dispute the "official" version that it was suicide.

I guess you would be taken in by the known and disgraced liars (Nixon and Pinochet). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i've read somewhere castro had tried to make that kind of suicide about 600 times in forty years. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

i wonder why noone talks about international terrorism here.