PUBLIC MEETING: CHILE 1973 AND THE WAR ON TERROR TODAY

by >>>>>Seáinín Mon Sep 15, 2003 19:32

Well, the one simialrity I see in both cases is that the US intervened to save a country from misrule. Allende destroyed the Chilean economy and people had had enough, the military coup was popular with most Chileans at the time, something leftists conveniently forget.

by anarcho Mon Sep 15, 2003 21:35 anarcho at geocities dot com

Allende destroyed the economy? Really? What about
the heroic actions of the CIA and the US state?
The US on record about making the economy "scream".
Not to mention, of course, the activities of the
Chilean capitalist class. So, please, credit where
credit is due... And lets not forget that Pinochet
also successfully destroyed the economy as well.

And "most people" supported the coup? That explains
why Pinochet was dictator for nearly two decades...
After all, if the coup was popular and people did
not want Allende then elections could have been
held instantly. But, no, the Chilean people were
not given that option, suggesting that the coup
was not popular.

Of course anyone suggesting that under Pinochet
could look forward to torture and, perhaps, death.

Obviously dictatorship and torture were "popular"
as well...

by JD Dalton Mon Sep 15, 2003 22:05

Hugh O'Shaughnessy isn't Irish. He's not a very good journalist either.

by correcting Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:35

Actually Hugh O'Shaughnessy is Irish, though he has spent most of his life in England, as for not being a good journalist well you are entitled to your opinion, whatever it is based on. Others might disagree, fortunately it is easy enough to get hold of his articles.

As for Seanin the arsehole, well he is still at it talking about destroying economies. I think the arguments for that are extremely weak, not that they would justify a coup.

by >>>>>Seáinín Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:00

The proof really lies in how things have turned out. Chile is one of the most successful economies in South America. On the other hand Cuba remains a hellhole of a country.

by hé Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:28

but one contributive factor is "freedom".
Freedom might be catagorised as economic, legal, gender related, access to health, education....
Freedom and Human Development do _seem_ linked.

The UNHDR report, started at the end of the 90s is a periodic review of all member nations indices relation to "human development" and thus in a sense "liberty".

Chile scores lower than Cuba on emancipation of women, thus 50% of the population have less access to jobs, educational opportunities and such.

NOTE that in Chile married women are still legally "chatteled" and not considered to be individuals regards custody of children or entitled to property in times of marital breakdown.

Interestingly in the accompanying UNHDR anaylsis you will notice that Chile and Ireland come together on the "freedom to choose" index.
Chile less than 1% below the average Ireland less than 1% above.

you may google for U.N.H.D.R.
or read
FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS
A comparative study in 46 nations in the early 1990's

Ruut Veenhoven
Published in: Diener, E. & Suh, E.M. (eds) 'Culture and subjective wellbeing'
MIT press, Cambridge, MA USA, 2000, ISBN 0 262 04182 0, pp. 257-288
at the link, then go on with these silly and comparisons of GDP/GNP and economic output claiming they are related to "happyness".

by zayín Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:39

You're thinking if there's only one% difference between Chile and Ireland in the afore mentioned text and it's table, then Chile can't be that bad.
thus Seanín knows best.

But think again.

The U.N.H.D.R. was a landbreaking idea. Never before had a global comparison been made between societies using this type of information. When the first copy came out, (irritating personal detail: I had a small bookshop on Charing X Rd. and I did my best to dstribute about 500 copies).
But because the scope was global, the information within was not exactly up to date.
So the table which equates Chile and Ireland is based on information from the end of the 1980s.
Our youngest readers were born in the 1980s.

SO: In the 1980s kids, there was no divorce in Ireland, there was extensive censorship in Ireland, there was limited contraception in Ireland, there was limited rights of women to marital property, there were no gay rights in Ireland, it was very very different to now.
If you're reading this in UCD/UL/DCU/TCD etc., it is very likely you can get a copy of the UNHDR.
= read it.
If you're doing a course in "economics or how to get a job in a NGO you'll prob. have to read it".
& you ought to read here too.
%-)

by >>>>>Seáinín Tue Sep 16, 2003 17:28

Oh ywah, Cuba is such a woderful place the people are trying to get over to the US in flimsy little rafts to spread the good news.

Why don't some of you communists go and help Fidel, seems he's having a little trouble getting the revolution finished.

by JD Dalton Wed Sep 17, 2003 09:21

You're quite wrong. O'Shaughnessy is not Irish. Did you never hear him speak ?

by qoph Wed Sep 17, 2003 13:58

people left Cuba in droves, just like they left Ireland in droves. Didn't they? And if I'm wrong correct me, but didn't two of the ferries out of Ireland in the 1980s fail safety tests?
And in the 1990s didn't another suffer the ignominty of losing it's stabiliser mid sail between Rosslare and France?
And wasn't every poor irish boy and girl who left with their 35kg luggage by air, charged between 10 and 15 punts tac for the privelage?
And how many came back?

by anarcho Wed Sep 17, 2003 23:51 anarcho at geocities dot com

"The proof really lies in how things have turned out. Chile is one of the most successful economies in South America. On the other hand Cuba remains a hellhole of a country."

So the ends justify the means? So dictatorship and torture are okay if the "economy" is doing well? What about basic things like treating people are ends, not means?

And, btw, the economy collapsed big time under the Pinochet dictatorship. Also, of course, inequality, poverty and so on exploded under Pinochet. But, obviously, the working class do not count when evaluating whether the "economy" is "successful." But, I suppose, by "successful" it is meant "the rich are getting richer"

For more on the so-called Chilean "successful" economy under Pinochet visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC11.html

The facts are somewhat different from the "ends justify means" rhetoric used by some.