Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (87731)	3/29/2003 4:08:36 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is not clear how much was because of a destabilization campaign, and how much was inherent in the situation. That seems to have been the conclusion of the Church Committee, in not knowing whether to assign blame for the ultimate downfall of Allende to the CIA. I do not deny that Allende was legally elected. I am sure that that is not what bothered Kissinger: he was bothered by the radical elements in Allende's coalition. I am not saying that the coup was right, I am saying that I might have chosen Pinochet over Allende if I were making policy and considered a coup to be inevitable. I have no idea what would have happened in the next election. Things might have gone smoothly, or the radicals might have succeeded in hijacking power. In my opinion, we should have waited to see. In other words, I agree that Chile was a mistake. I just view it in context, and refuse to draw stark conclusions from it......By the way, the United States never was hostile to the socialist governments of Europe, nor even many Third World socialist governments. Sweden was never in any danger, nor was Nehru's India. It was hostile to radical socialist governments that aligned themselves with the Soviet Union.......