Castro is sooooooo cool

[Scaybeeez]

I'm sorry you feel that way about the US.  Speaking of naivety, you do realize that the real sources of Arab resentment are their own governments, right? Radical Islam has nothing to do with the US. Nothing.

Again, Allende asked for and received KGB cash directly. I asked whether or not it is logical to conclude that said cash bought the Soviets influence. You erect a straw man instead of answering that question. Why, Scaybeez? What should concern you is that you had no idea that the Soviets were engaged in Chile (as they were all over the globe). Furthermore, the KGB seemed to think that their expenditures were effective.

For the record, you will never understand these US actions outside of a Cold War context. I suspect that you don't really want to an dmerely have an ideological axe to grind.

Lula and Chavez are not peas in a pod. Far from it.  Chavez is a relic. 

While I'll agree that the nature of the leftist leaning leaders across South America varies, attempting to separate Chavez from the movement, I think, is a  mistake.  He's easily the most militant and outspoken - famous for putting his shoe in his mouth - but the fact that he's been out there doing it and getting away with it has made the entire continent bolder and more willing to shift leftward politically.

There is no "movement". There is a huge capitalist world out there. Get used to it.

Your insistence that the U.S.' past actions in Latin America have taken place in a vacuum show a certain desire on your part to ignore the reality.  You truly believe that you can semi-regularly overthrow democracies without earning the disdain of millions?  Honestly?  If so, there is truly no other word for that that naivety.

Also, while I will be the first to admit that the governments throughout the Middle East tend to be corrupt and are very much to blame for the situations their people find themselves in, are they ALONE to blame?  We have working relationships with these governments.  Our money goes to them.  We have a hand in their policies, to varying degrees, from simply buying their oil to overthrowing their leaders (see Mossadegh).  So this "we're squeeky clean and can't be blamed for anything" argument doesn't really seem to hold up under the light of day.

As I've already discussed at length, even if I accept Wiki as the gospel, it in no way changes the basics: all the evidence indicates that had both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. stayed out of the picture, Allende would have most likely have won by an even LARGER margin.  You've attempted to weasel around this by arguing that, despite the fact that the U.S. spent TWICE as much money trying to keep Allende from winning the election, that the U.S. somehow just wasted it all and it had no real affect.  But c'mon, you don't seriously buy this, do you?  We'd been engaged in the business of tampering with Latin American elections for at least twenty-odd years by this point.  This wasn't the CIA's first operation of the sort. 

If the U.S.' money was spent in an effective manner even HALF of the time, that alone would have negated the influence of the Soviet money. 

Allende wasn't popular because he received a paltry some from the KGB.  He won because he addressed the issues that the U.S. backed candidates had consistently ignored for well over a decade.  Poverty and unemployment.  I know it's easier, and more grand, to chalk all this up to design created in Moscow, but the fact of the matter is that Allende won because our policies were short sighted, narrow, and did not take into account the millions of poor people in Chile.  He won because he appealed to the people we left behind.

Finally, if these types of actions took place SOLELY within a Cold War context, they would have ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.  They haven't.

[Scaybeeez]

So is it "millions and millions" or $740,000?

The $740,000 was spent on efforts to influence the elections themselves.  $390,000 of which came from the U.S. government.  $350,000 of which came from ITT and was sent to the right wing candidate's campaign (Alessandri).  Actually, upon looking back over some of these things, it appears ITT also helped other American businesses to donate to the Alessandri campaign, so the figure is actually a few hundred thousand dollars higher than I initially stated.  Hmm.

The rest of the money, to the tune of millions of dollars, was spent after Allende won the election and U.S. efforts to convince the Chilean Congress to block his path to the presidency failed.  This was mainly spent on propaganda efforts to create discontent and economic chaos, thus laying the groundwork necessary for a coup to take place.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Your insistence that the U.S.' past actions in Latin America have taken place in a vacuum show a certain desire on your part to ignore the reality.  You truly believe that you can semi-regularly overthrow democracies without earning the disdain of millions?  Honestly?  If so, there is truly no other word for that that naivety.

I have insisted on no such thing.

Also, while I will be the first to admit that the governments throughout the Middle East tend to be corrupt and are very much to blame for the situations their people find themselves in, are they ALONE to blame?  We have working relationships with these governments.  Our money goes to them.  We have a hand in their policies, to varying degrees, from simply buying their oil to overthrowing their leaders (see Mossadegh).  So this "we're squeeky clean and can't be blamed for anything" argument doesn't really seem to hold up under the light of day.

Again, the US has nothing to do with radical Islam. What's with the strawmen tonight? 

As I've already discussed at length, even if I accept Wiki as the gospel, it in no way changes the basics: all the evidence indicates that had both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. stayed out of the picture, Allende would have most likely have won by an even LARGER margin. 

Because you say so? As I said earlier, the US did not stay out and niether did the Soviets. Moreover, they were not asked to stay out but beseeched for aid.

You've attempted to weasel around this by arguing that, despite the fact that the U.S. spent TWICE as much money trying to keep Allende from winning the election, that the U.S. somehow just wasted it all and it had no real affect.  But c'mon, you don't seriously buy this, do you?  We'd been engaged in the business of tampering with Latin American elections for at least twenty-odd years by this point.  This wasn't the CIA's first operation of the sort.

 

Oh so it was a paltry $400,000 vs. $740,000? Yeah, that sure proves Moscow didn't care. You're joking, right?

If the U.S.' money was spent in an effective manner even HALF of the time, that alone would have negated the influence of the Soviet money.

 

What?  This is bizarre reasoning. Every dollar A spends  negates every dollar B spends? The sums are far too close for one to assume that how these monies were spent would have no bearing on the outcome. BTW, this wasn't the KGB's first time either.

Finally, if these types of actions took place SOLELY within a Cold War context, they would have ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.  They haven't.

We are talking about a specific episode that took place during the Cold War. Again, you can not understand our actions and motivations outside of this context. What you need to ask yourself is why you didn't know that the KGB was active in Chile.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

In addition, considering how heavily invested the Soviets were in Vietnam in the early 1970s it should be no surprise that the US (a significantly wealthier entity) could afford to outspend them particularly so close to home. That the Soviets could not match US spending proves nothing other than that the Soviets simply didn't have the cash.

[Scaybeeez]

I have insisted on no such thing.

K, my mistake.  That's how I was interpreting your position.  Sorry for the mix-up!

Again, the US has nothing to do with radical Islam. What's with the strawmen tonight?

Well, that's not exactly true, though, is it?  We were instrumental in backing the Mujahideen, gaining radical Islam its greatest victory yet, after which  many of the fighters returned to their home countries and found a willing and waiting audience amongst the impoverished millions...

Because you say so? As I said earlier, the US did not stay out and niether did the Soviets. Moreover, they were not asked to stay out but beseeched for aid.

If the money the super powers were dispensing in this election affected the outcome at all, the U.S. spending twice as much and their candidate STILL losing indicates that said candidate didn't have enough support to begin with.

Oh so it was a paltry $400,000 vs. $740,000? Yeah, that sure proves Moscow didn't care. You're joking, right?

The Soviets, in total, spent $400,000 while we spent literally MILLIONS.  If the Soviets didn't even bother investing half as much money in this venture as the U.S., how can you argue that this was really a high priority for them?

What?  This is bizarre reasoning. Every dollar A spends  negates every dollar B spends? The sums are far too close for one to assume that how these monies were spent would have no bearing on the outcome. BTW, this wasn't the KGB's first time either.

Since both had experience in these matters, assuming that both spent their money in the relatively same, effective manner isn't a stretch.  Subversion and propaganda tactics don't tend to vary a whole lot across the globe...

We are talking about a specific episode that took place during the Cold War. Again, you can not understand our actions and motivations outside of this context. What you need to ask yourself is why you didn't know that the KGB was active in Chile.

While I agree that this took place within the Cold War context, what I'm arguing is that that context is not the ONLY one it took place in.  It also took place within the context of a Western Hemisphere whose top dog feels it has a right, if not an obligation, to engage in these types of activities.

Hey, I'm going to attempt to recreate the format you're using for this discussion.  So forgive me if this is a horrifically jumbled mess by the time I post it!   

[Scaybeeez]

In addition, considering how heavily invested the Soviets were in Vietnam in the early 1970s it should be no surprise that the US (a significantly wealthier entity) could afford to outspend them particularly so close to home. That the Soviets could not match US spending proves nothing other than that the Soviets simply didn't have the cash.

That's certainly something to take into consideration.  Though financial matters definitely would have been a concern around this period, I'd think they could do a little better than $400,000, you know?  I can't help thinking they had their minds on other matters, particularly, the situation in other parts of Southeast Asia and parts of Africa.