MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 16th 2017 - 20:39 UTC

ARA San Juan: since Falklands' conflict, Buenos Aires and London have never been closer

Thursday, November 30th 2017 - 07:53 UTC
Full article 124 comments

Under the suggestive heading, Clarin correspondent Maria Laura Avignolo writes that the Argentine tragedy of the submarine ARA San Juan has brought ever so close Argentine and British military for the first time since the Falklands conflict. And not surprisingly the support effort includes using the MPA complex in the Islands, if needed. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • golfcronie

    Argentine sources say ” they ( the UK ) are paying for the bill ” that's typical of the Argentines. Must get a crack in.

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Brit Bob

    If they give up their Falklands claim things can get even better.

    Falklands – Argentina's Inheritance Problem ( 1 pg): -
    https://www.academia.edu/35194694/Falklands_Argentinas_Inheritance_Problem

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • El capitano 1

    Not surprised at the UK....“Paying the bill”...Face it...Argentina coud'nt pay a bus fare right now...A broke corrupt country wallowing in its own incometence...!

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    “Comodoro Rivadavia court which is responsible for the missing submarine case has requested that the military secret surrounding the ARA San Juan mission be lifted,”

    What secret...?
    The Mission or the explosion...?

    So pgerman may be right...there was a hidden (secret mission)
    http://en.mercopress.com/2017/11/22/time-and-oxygen-running-out-for-argentine-missing-submarine-in-the-south-atlantic/comments#comment477723

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • shackleton

    It took the Israelis 31 years (from 1968-99) to find their INS Dakar sub at a depth of 3000m in the E.Med, a much smaller search area. The San Juan may never be found and, even if it is, we'll probably never know what caused it to sink.

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Chicureo

    Voice:
    There is no SECRET that the submarine sank due to Peronist theft, corruption and greed. There is no hidden evidence that the loss of the unfortunate crew was not due to Kirchnerism murder. Nor was it no SECRET that the submarine modifications were never approved by the German builder. The only thing still hidden is PAGEBOY's ability to understand the obvious truth.

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Ricardito

    We, Argentinians. are really thankful for the British help. Hopefully, one day we will become friends again.

    I would love to see Falkland Islanders studying in Argie universities and Argies studying English in the Falkland and put this sad chapter of history where it belongs, in the past.
    That's why I love the title of this article “Buenos Aires and London have never been closer”.
    I only blame the fascist, populist leaders we had, that forced the Falklands issue since we're in primary school.
    I live in Australia and made many British friends and acquaintances. Almost all of them thought at the beginning I was going to be mean to them because of this political and military conflict, thanks for the bad press, military junta, CFK, etc etc.

    I really hope we start a new chapter despite the obvious differences and we can move on.

    Nov 30th, 2017 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +12
  • Voice

    Chicureo

    Instead of explaining all that it doesn't mean perhaps you might explain what the passage does mean...
    Instead of doing your best Marti impression...
    btw...Marti hates Chile and Chileans too...(that means you)

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Chicureo

    Voice:
    If Marti Llazo has a problem with Chileans, it has nothing to do with his concluding this wholesale greed, theft and corruption of this murder solely rests in the hands of the Kirchnerism Argentines. Chile has its serious problems and some very disagreeable inhabitants, but at least our 4 submarines are properly maintained.
    Unlike pageboy, Marti posts intelligent observations and information.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • pgerman

    https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2017/11/30/busqueda-del-submarino-la-jueza-de-caleta-olivia-confirmo-que-el-gobierno-brindara-toda-la-informacion-secreta/


    https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2017/11/30/busqueda-del-submarino-la-jueza-de-caleta-olivia-confirmo-que-el-gobierno-brindara-toda-la-informacion-secreta/

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Chicureo

    Our señor expert engineer Pageboy still has a delusion of a hidden secret mission that resides only in the minds of simpletons as himself. Further proving his contributions to any intelligent thoughts to this forum are worthless.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • pgerman

    Chicureo, realmente crees, que siendo adulto (vos y yo) me vas a ofender llamándome “Pageboy”? ¿Cuantos años tenes? Pareces “Marti Llazo”....

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    Some highlights of Marti's opinion of Chile and Chileans:

    “And then there is Chile's attempt to build a simple bascule bridge -- which even the Canadians were fully capable of doing over 100 years ago - now after years and years of spectacular failure, continues to stump Chile's best and brightest.”

    “Many of my clients are chilenos and chileno agencies and have been for more than 15 years. In spite of occasional tiny islands of responsibility, they are too often inept and often criminally negligent. The chilenos are just as practised as the argies in shutting down the country with strikes and the like, and their considerable corruption is better disguised and less confessed.”

     http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/19/uruguay-chile-and-costa-rica-with-60-household-internet-penetration/comments

    Can't wait to see what this so called secret mission was.

    @Ricardito
    Thanks. It's good to see we can work together when it's needed. Just a shame that all the searches were unable to find the submarine and rescue the crew.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    DemonTree:
    Chile is a country with all it's numerous faults still remains the most stable and advanced country in Latin America. Yes, the air quality of Santiago and Temuco is abysmal in winter, our public education and health care is disappointing and we still have a group of socialist radicals that still whine about the overthrow of Allende's government. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
    What I object to is señor expert engineer adolescent Pageboy concocting cock and bull stories about “hidden” and “secret” Argentine submarine missions.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • pgerman

    @Chicureo

    THE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS IN THE ARGENTINE MEDIA NOW..

    So, keep on making fun of me but, considering the demands of the Argentine Minister of Defense to be released from the legal consequences of disclosing information to the Federal Justice of Argentina and considering that the Judge explicitly, and in writing, released the Minister from this legal responsibility, I would say that you are doing a sad role.

    “Chicureo”..again..How old are you?

    (“Marti Llazo” refused to answer a couple of questions such as his age and his true place of birth).

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    Every country has its own problems, and also it's good points, but Marti is unrelentingly negative in all his posts. In this case you happen to agree with him, maybe in other cases you won't.

    I'm really surprised you are arguing so much with pgerman, as from what I have seen he has right-wing views, hates Peronism, and supports the military. Maybe as a practical matter you would prefer Argentina follow Think's wishes and get rid of its military, but you don't share his opinions, do you?

    And given how much else the Argentine Navy has concealed, it would hardly be surprising to learn they had been concealing its true mission, too.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    DemonTree with all due respect,
    If Marti should wish to debate me about Chilean problems in the future, he's welcome to do so, and perhaps he'll make some good points. However, his observations about the ARA San Juan reflect my conclusions as well. He's contributed some very informative posts about this disaster.
    As far as myself, I suffered living during the Unidad Popular of Salvador Allende and because of that have what would be considered some strong right wing views.
    Obviously, the Argentine government has been guilty of a major coverup, but the submarine was not on a secret mission.

    “...demands of the Argentine Minister of Defense to be released from the legal consequences of disclosing information to the Federal Justice of Argentina and considering that the Judge explicitly, and in writing, released the Minister from this legal responsibility...” So Pageboy really believes in his governmental cock and bull fraudulence... I prefer not to continue debating with a weón más tonto que una puerta.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • pgerman

    “So Pageboy really believes in his governmental cock and bull fraudulence... I prefer not to continue debating with a weón más tonto que una puerta”?

    ¿How old are you? Please, let us know....

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    “I suffered living during the Unidad Popular of Salvador Allende”

    Obviously you didn't suffer the same fate as those with strong left wing views under Pinochet. I don't know a whole lot about Allende, what did he do to the country that was so bad?

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • pgerman

    @DemonTree

    He suffered a lot during Salvador Allende's presidency but he was quite happy during Augusto Pinochet's “oasis of peace and freedom”.

    Latam militars have always been the same...TG this is changing in Argentina (not pretty sure about any change in Chile).

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Voice

    Chicureo

    If I had a submarine and I was Argentina, I would most certainly snoop the UK defences...they do it on the surface so why not below it...
    If it was indeed doing that no one would be surprised or even outraged Russia has been caught lots of times...
    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss conjecture...

    Marti is anti Argentine, anti Chile and probably anti Latin America I'm sure you don't want to be tarred with the same brush his only motive with his posts is to ridicule... whatever the event...

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    DemonTree

    In brief, fate was good to me, because I was easily accepted into the naval academy and quickly promoted because of my language skills. I'm proud of my service.

    I clearly remember the day of the overthrow of Allende in 1973 which was welcomed by most of the population here, but then the brutal days of the military junta was merciless in their long term governance. Innocent and guilty people were detained, tortured and in many cases executed.

    On the whole, Augusto Pinochet was wrong in some things he did, but Salvador Allende was no angel either. He nearly destroyed my country.

    He won the presidency with only 36% of the national vote. “La vía chilena al socialismo” resulted in majority part of my grandparent's farm being expropriated.
    I remember “uncle” Fidel Castro came to celebrate our Marxist-socialist revolution for 4 weeks, while there was a complete collapse of our major national companies, 300% inflation, waiting in long lines (like Venezuela today) for meager rationed supermarket staples. Toilet paper was nearly impossible to obtain and women protesting in the streets beating on pots and pans in Santiago as there was little to eat. The common people were furious with the Allende government going on endless work stoppages including all the truck drivers on strike here. In 1973 we were destined to be another Cuba similar what is happening in Venezuela today.

    I distinctly remember going to Mendoza with my family for a weekend during the time and being so envious of Argentines being able to buy whatever they wanted in the fully stocked markets there. Common people here were angry, really angry.

    No one thought the junta would continue until 1990.

    Dec 01st, 2017 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    Thanks for answering.

    36% is low for a directly elected President, but our PM could easily come from a party that got that share of the national vote, and they wouldn't need to have the highest share either.

    I didn't know things had got so bad under Allende. I would guess the people who voted for him did not expect what actually happened. Did he still have many supporters by that point? I suppose if Pinochet had taken over and then held new elections he might have been praised, but instead he made himself dictator and tortured and murdered anyone who might possibly be opposed to him.

    And you were in the navy during this time? Surely you must at least have known what was going on?

    Dec 02nd, 2017 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    In a parliamentary system, a vote of no confidence exists. In Chile, the congress and the supreme court tried to stop Allende's policies with no result.

    I graduated from the academy after the Falklands War and being fully fluent in English was a quick route to promotion as relations with the Royal Navy was very close. Admiral Jose Toribio Merino, the head of the navy was a despicable war criminal and I had no respect for him. I never witnessed any human rights violations during my service, but I obviously read about them.
    What we experienced in Chile was a civil war.

    Dec 02nd, 2017 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    “In a parliamentary system, a vote of no confidence exists. In Chile, the congress and the supreme court tried to stop Allende's policies with no result. ”

    True, and it often seems to happen in Latin America that the President is able to fill the courts with his (or her) own supporters and negate that check on power. See Juan Hernández in Honduras and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

    “What we experienced in Chile was a civil war.”

    How so? I've always heard it was a military coup, and there was very little resistance. Also that the victims included trade union and religious leaders, basically anyone Pinochet saw as opposition, whether peaceful or not.

    “I never witnessed any human rights violations during my service, but I obviously read about them.”

    Serious question: were you ever worried you might be ordered to commit some?

    Dec 02nd, 2017 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Chicureo

    DemonTree

    For a full summary of Chile 's human rights violations during the military government, with a decidedly left point of view:
    https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/collections/truth_commissions/Chile90-Report/Chile90-Report.pdf

    “Serious question: were you ever worried you might be ordered to commit some?”
    No, I was in the signals corps. Frankly only a few naval personnel were ever involved.

    Dec 02nd, 2017 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • imoyaro

    @Chicureo

    The Allende situation has always reminded me of Balmaceda. Unfortunately, Pinochet was no Jorge Montt ...

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    Right in the introduction, the report says it wasn't a civil war:

    “The military government always insisted that it had been waging a war, albeit an unorthodox one, against an insidious, subversive enemy. Yet under no accepted definition of armed conflict could such an allegation be sustained. As established in this report, except for isolated acts of resistance on the day of the coup d'état and in its immediate aftermath, the military government exerted effective control over the country. It was able to suppress any opposition, whether peaceful or not, during the first seven years of its rule. Around 1980, however, as explained in this report, some opposition groups started an organized armed resistance. While they were never able to control territory or to wage military operations in a sustained manner, their actions gave a boost to the government's contention that it was fighting a war.”

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Very different men and exceptionally different times, but still a good observation.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • imoyaro

    @Chicureo
    Very true, but what struck me was that in both cases, the senate declared the president to have broken the constitution and wanted the armed forces to act to remove him. One of those examples where “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes...” ;)

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    “endless work stoppages including all the truck drivers on strike here” It was a coup that that was brought and paid for by your friendly US government. What ever had been the faults of Allende, he was a medical doctor who was deeply disturbed by the fact that twenty-five percent of children suffered from malnutrition. That the apparent pilfering of resources with only a pittance recompense served neither the interests of capitalism nor Chileans.
    The numb of the matter has been that those same anti-democratic individuals first, seek employment within the aegis of their government. Which is a principal they supposedly despise. Secondly, they break every tennent of their own countries laws, constitution and international law for what many consider very dubious political reasons

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    TH
    What alarmed the Nixon administration was the seizure of North American assets (especially the copper mining) and the whole region drifting towards communism.
    The US government was a factor in encouraging the overthrow, but the main reason for change was due to major popular unrest. Something that could be compared to what is happening today in Venezuela.
    For what it's worth, Dr. Salvador Allende was deeply affected by the situation of the poor in this country and during the first two years achieved a great deal of popularity from the common people with programs such as free milk for children, lower food prices and strengthening labor rights. However, for those who remember especially 1972 and 1973, the vast majority of people here was very angry with the government because our socialist paradise had become a nightmare.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Didn't the US vow to crush Chile's economy after you elected a socialist government, similar to Cuba with all the sanctions? And there was no Venezuela giving oil cheap to its friends back then.

    Who owns the copper mines now?

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    The USA put a great deal of pressure against the Chilean economy, but nothing draconian such as Cuba. We received a significant amount of aide from eastern block countries, including the USSR and especially Cuba.

    Roughly 60% of copper exports are state produced with the remainder from US, Canadian, Swedish and Japanese companies.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I think it's ridiculous and petty that the US still has sanctions against Cuba after all this time, but that's not relevant to Chile. At least you did manage to get hold of some of the mines.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    DT
    Actually, Allende nationalized ALL the copper mining industry, which was the country's major export income. Foreign controlled operations are from new developments encouraged post 1973.
    Just like Venezuela that nationalized its petroleum industry and experienced a significant drop in production, Chile suffered a similar situation during the Unidad Popular government.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Did Pinochet not privatise the mines again then? Didn't you say the US supported him because they objected to them being nationalised?

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    DT
    Chile retained CODELCO but encouraged new foreign investment in mining. There were however major privatizations of communications and other state owned enterprises.
    What alarmed Nixon was that Chile was the first South American nation to democratly elect a Marxist president.
    BTW despite what the report says, from my personal point of view, we experienced a civil war in Chile.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    “What alarmed the Nixon administration was the seizure of North American assets” Of course they had every right to be concerned.
    “The US government was a factor in encouraging the overthrow” The whole coup was paid for lock stock and barrel by the US. There was no chance of Allende drifting towards communism as he was a democratic socialist. There were other elements that were a cause for concern. “Our socialist paradise had become a nightmare.” When the US is engaging in total economic warfare against your country what else is going to happen? Allende, is not going to have many options as to allies in combatting the breaches of international law pitted against him is he.
    The US responded to any and all restraints on US companies much the same as a century earlier Imperial Britain had. When there were undoubtably better ways to serve American interests. Whereas all she has reaped is by an large a population of many Latinos that are deeply suspicious of any US intentions. While she may have gained in the short term. What troubles me is what damage she may have done to her long term interests.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    Hmm, so Pinochet didn't undo all of Allende's changes, even when they affected his supporters the US. I wonder how happy they were about that?

    To an outside observer, what happened in Chile does not look like a war of any kind. A massacre seems like a better description, and evidently a lot of inside observers agree. So what makes you think otherwise?

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    TH
    First, I don't pretend to completely understand what happened in my country, what I can do is explain what I personally experienced.

    “The seizure of North American assets” certainly alarmed the Nixon administration, but our continuous shift into becoming a Marxist-socialist state was a certainty.
    Yes, I'm opinionated because I lived through it. I remember being sent by my mother to the local ”supermarket“ hours before opening to wait in line to see what might be available to buy. Basic items you take for granted were unobtainable during the period. People on strike was rampant due to untenable conditions. The country was going into wholesale ruin. People were very angry.

    You're welcome to your opinion, but Allende was definitely NOT a ”democratic socialist“ and the majority in his government were certainly a motley mix of socialists, Marxists and communists. As I mentioned before, Fidel Castro spent four weeks here in Chile.

    DT
    Obviously they were not happy about losing their companies, but the new Chilean government was not about to release its most valuable asset.
    In the mid-70s the USA government shut off our military supplies and Britain threw us a lifeline as the Argentines were getting ready to invade us.

    You can use the terms executed, disappeared or murdered. About 3,200 died, compared to how many in Argentina? There is a reason why they refer to it as a ”dirty war”...

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    “There is a reason why they refer to it as a ”dirty war”...”

    Because 'war' sounds better than 'state sponsored terrorism'? It's not a war when only one side has an army, and it's all politics what gets called a war and what doesn't. The Troubles isn't usually called a civil war, but surely has a much better claim to be one than what happened in Chile or Argentina.

    And apparently Pinochet did not disagree with everything Allende did. It shows the self-interested motive of the US in promoting and supporting the coup, alongside their cold war fear of communism spreading.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Chicureo

    DT
    Historians from both the left and right refer to the time period in the southern cone of South America as the “dirty war” and many of my countrymen describe the period as a civil war. In any case, it was a very dangerous time for supporters of Allende's government. Many were exiled, some were tortured and several died.

    Anyway, you and others may describe it as you wish, but it was a nightmare just as bad as what's happening in Venezuela.

    Dec 03rd, 2017 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    Sure, people can describe it however they wish, but you said it was your personal point of view. If it was a war then who was fighting on the other side? Were there battles, were you shot at? Did you have colleagues killed? Did you have to take precautions because you were in danger?

    If I compare to other countries, I don't see any equivalent to say the FARC in Chile. You've told us your experiences of the economic disaster under Allende, but not of any violence from his supporters.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    “Hours before opening to wait in line to see what might be available to buy” Was nothing to do with Allende, and everything to do with what the US was economically inflicting on your country, You can engage in all the speculations that your political bias allows you to indulge in. But, the reality was the US had targeted your country, as it had many others in Latin America for a bout of political reeducation. In other words modern neocolonialism, you were turned into the US’s bitch.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    TH
    “...the US had targeted your country...”
    Interesting you should state that because that's exactly what Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela claims is causing shortages of basic goods in the supermarkets currently there...

    DT
    It would be good one day for you to sit down with a Chilean (left or right) and discuss from our perspective what took place in the 70s.

    A friend of my family that was assassinated by terrorists here:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzmán

    One of the terrorist groups operating in Chile during the military regime:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzmán

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    ¡VIVA CHILE! ¡HERMOSO PAIS!

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    Suppose you're right and and all the shortages were caused by the USA, and had nothing to do with the strikes and other internal problems. How does that help them? Chile isn't going to win a fight against the US, not an economic war and certainly not a real one. And what's the alternative? Ask for help from the USSR and end up like Cuba if they are lucky and Vietnam if they are not?

    @Chicureo
    I guess it would, though I don't know how many would be willing to talk about it. If you don't want to then I won't ask you any more.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    “That's exactly what Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela claims” Then perhaps they are, its not an issue that I have explored. But, there is certainly definitive evidence of such predatory behaviour by the US throughout Latin America.
    As to Sr. Errázuriz, I can only assume that the group that assented him considered him one of the worst offenders against democracy. “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”
    Since we are sharing antidotal evidence. At the time of the coup, a Chilean friend showed me a letter from an Uncle who was a bureaucrat. In the letter he put the real figure of the murders committed by the Pinochet regime. After, putting a single line through them he put in the officially
    claimed figures. So that if his mail was intercepted he would avoid problems. The unofficial figures which have since been verified were in the thousands. So one versus thousands, a drop in the bucket.
    DT
    “What's the alternative?” Well the US could consider roping in those commercial elements that cause such a negative political response against US interests. Such as a kinder face on capital interests, after all, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Gordo
    ¡Viva Chile!

    DT
    CORRECTION (I mistakenly attached the same link)
    One of the terrorist groups operating in Chile during the military regime:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Left_Movement_(Chile)

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    Yes, the US had other choices besides following such evil and counterproductive policies, but what options did Chile have?

    @Chicureo
    It wasn't your mistake; since the site redesign it replaces all links in a comment with the first one. If you want to include more than one in future you can delete the 'http' off the front so it doesn't recognise it.

    Most of the 'Notable Members' of your terrorist group seem to have been executed or disappeared after the coup. How many members of the military government were killed?

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • golfcronie

    And what has the above chatter about Chile got to do to do with the “ San Juan ” and the plight of it's sailors?

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • imoyaro

    @golfcronie

    Nothing. He's a K shill here to try to collect the personal info of perceived opponents of La Asesina. ;)

    http://rantburg.com/images/piefight05.jpg

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    What options did Chile have? Well I can think of quite a few. If you discount those of purely corrupt treasonable self interest motives,
    “Just as Allende, …there also existed a stunning naiveté .. (though not the will) of the US government to overthrow a government elected in a constitutional manner. Allende insisted:
    …I believe that they will not do anything of this nature [economic measures, blockades even]: firstly, because as I say, we have acted within the laws of Chile, within the Constitution. It is for this reason ... that I have maintained that victory through the polling booths was the way to pre-empt any such policy, because this way their hands are tied.
    ... William Colby, head of the CIA in 1973, has told us of the “doubts within both the CIA and the State Department about large-scale CIA covert political action and subsidies”. ..has told us of the “doubts within both the CIA and the State Department about large-scale CIA covert political action and subsidies” ..From 1970 to 1973 in a country of less than 10 million people, at least $8 million was officially spent by the US government on destabilising the Allende government, an amount greatly enhanced by the collapse of the escudo and extensive use of the Chilean black market for foreign exchange.The CIA moved ..to reinforce the pluralism of the Chilean press by subsidies to El Mercurio via Hernán Cubillos: and through founding new publications: one was the periodical Qué Pasa, launched with characteristic discretion by, among others, Cristian Zegers Ariztia.The other was the populist daily Tribuna. A third was Sepatrun by deputy Rafael Otero…”
    The Nixon Administration and the Death of Allende's Chile: A Case of ...By Jonathan Haslam
    https://books.google.com.br/books?id=cBcDJ34AJGMC&pg=PA64&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @golfcronie
    Nothing.

    @TH
    If Allende believed the US would respect the laws and constitution of Chile then he was wrong, wasn't he? So in the end probably the only way to end the shortages was to appease America.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “The only way to end the shortages was to appease America.” You forget you are dealing with Nixon and Kissinger not exactly noted for their morality, They were determined to punish Chile because they could. With great power comes great responsibility.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    No, I'm not forgetting that. You are the one saying you can think of quite a few options that Chile had, so why don't you list them?

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Right now in Chile, as in several other nations, we're receiving a large number of Venezuelans immigrating here. They include maids, gardeners, professionally trained middle class including doctors. For many the situation has become unlivable and it reminds me very much of Chile in 1973.
    If you ask an educated Venezuelan right now if he/she thinks it's the gringos fault, I doubt you'll find agreement, unless they're a Marxist.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    If you acccept that treason isn’t a satisfactory option? I think it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that in politics compromise in good faith is the essence of breaking any impasse in brokering a solution. But this wasn’t the case with Allende as too many people were prepared to accept the US’s material offers and forsake any duty they owed their country.
    Chicureo
    “Thinks it's the gringos fault” Well it was in Chile and I can’t stand radicals any more than I can reactionaries. Both, are insufferably limited by their ego centric convictions that they know better than everyone else.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    So your 'quite a few' options is actually one. I guess that's better than nothing... But you're saying Allende should have compromised in good faith with Nixon and Kissinger who were 'not exactly noted for their morality'?

    By the way, who am I supposed to be 'slavishly following' this time?

    @Chicureo
    It took about 15 years for Venezuela to get to that point, and Allende apparently managed it in three. So what did he do? Spend too much, print money to cover the deficit, price controls? VZ didn't fall apart until the oil prices dropped, did copper prices fall in the early 70s?

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Compromised in good faith with Nixon and Kissinger” I see you’re following you usual patten of being deliberately obtuse or stupid. In the famous quote of Lord Byron to Mrs. Wordsworth “Fuck off” Obviously Americans should not be involved in any internal political decisions as their conduct is a clear breach of international law, and one cannot benefit from their own wrong doing.
    Who am I supposed to be 'slavishly following' this time?”
    Any and all you deem to hold a contrary view to me.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    TH

    Pinochet may have had the secret help of the US, but he openly had the support of the Chilean housewives, who went in the streets of Santiago protesting Allende's rule banging their pots and pans.

    DT

    It took about 15 years for Venezuela, the country reported to have the largest petroleum reserves in the world, to now experience it's citizens forced to scavenge for food.

    I blame the downfall due to its Marxist ideologies.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    No, I'm not being deliberately anything, and there's no need to be rude. Your post was phrased extremely vaguely. Did you mean Allende should have compromised with the conservative elements in Chile, then? Because that seems pretty sensible to me.

    “Any and all you deem to hold a contrary view to me.”

    Thank you, that's as good as saying I'm not following anyone.

    As for “one cannot benefit from their own wrong doing”, you must know that people and countries do so all the time. We don't live in a perfect world.

    @Chicureo
    I don't agree with Terry. No doubt the US had measures designed to hurt Chile and they surely didn't help, but it wasn't an all out embargo as with Cuba. I don't see how they could have caused the economy to collapse on their own, so Allende's policies must have contributed.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    “The housewives, who went in the streets of Santiago protesting“ The economic misery that was brought on them by Nixon’s “make the economy scream” Chile: How We Destroy The Oldest Democracy In South America, And Turn A Peace-Loving Nation Into A Slaughterhouse http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/chile.htm
    “I blame the downfall due to its Marxist ideologies.” I wouldn’t expect anything else from a rabid right winger. Unfortunately, you don’t provide any evidence of your claim.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    TH
    You can link to leftist diatribes about the evils of the Pinochet government all you want and I as a “rabid right-winger” can follow with hundreds of others extolling the economic miracle of Chile. Rough times and economic disasters? Yes, but I lived through the transformation of my country to now being per capita one of the best in Latin America.

    Anyway, Nicolas Maduro now urgently needs your defense against gringo imperialism, Chile has been a full fledged democracy for 27 years.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “So Allende's policies must have contributed ..but it wasn't an all out embargo ” of which is simply your wild guess. As I can produce innumerable expert commentaries that refute such a contention. “Not a nut or a bolt [will] be allowed to reach Chile under Allende.” Edward Korry, US Ambassador
    “Thank you, that's as good as saying I'm not following anyone” Thats a flat out lie as you have rushed to support any right wing nut that I have challenged. If this not so, show any instance where you as a third party entry has ever supported me.
    Chicureo
    Nicolas Maduro won’t be getting my defence

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Terence Hill

    Why not? Your veiled anarchist Marxist idealist opinions would be very welcomed into the bolivarian revolution of Venezuela.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    Here, read this. It's a clear explanation and has lots of facts and figures:

    https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/21/the-invisible-blockade-against-allendes-chile/

    “Thats a flat out lie as you have rushed to support any right wing nut that I have challenged.”

    Have you not considered that YOU are the common factor here? If you actually looked at my posts you'd see I very frequently disagree with 'right wing nuts', but you only notice it when I disagree with you. You might have seen in this thread that I don't at all agree that what happened in Chile was a civil war, for example.

    And why won't you defend Maduro? Because he's making himself into a dictator? Will you defend his and Chavez's economic policies then, since they had something in common with Allende's?

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Dt
    Excellent link!
    Quote: Did an “invisible blockade” by the United States fatally undermine the Chilean economy under the presidency of Salvador Allende (1970-73)? Did it actually work? Short answer: No. Unquote

    The food shortages were from the drop in national commodity production, not imports. Anyway, we've beat this dead horse enough.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Chicureo
    You might not like the linked post on Pinochet's government 'There was no “Chilean Miracle”' so much:

    https://medium.com/@pseudoerasmus/to-explain-myself-on-twitter-my-view-of-chile-is-simply-this-fc44ddd93ce3

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • golfcronie

    Good Lord Demon, I would never have guessed.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    Ask a stupid question...

    And 'Lord Demon', hehe, I like it. Feel free to never learn proper use of commas. :D

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    My political orientation would be best described as a right leaning moderate that will vote for Piñera in the coming election. In my opinion, we suffered a civil war and experienced an economic miracle. Like mentioned before, I lived through the transition from Allende to Pinochet right up to our current socialist president Bachelet. And before you make any assumptions, I've been very supportive of all our post junta presidencies. Despite some of her economic policies, I've been a fan of Bachelet since she became a godmother of one of our Scorpène submarines when it was first commissioned.

    Dec 04th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo
    What I show is irrefutable facts that regardless of what media
    bias exists makes those truths unalterable.
    “But I lived through the transformation of my country” that was able to operate without outside interference only after the satisfactory installation of a dictatorship. “Why not” As I have previously stated I don’t have any time for intolerant extremists like yourself, what ever their political stripe is.
    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “a clear explanation” No its not its a lengthy speculation proffering opinion with links. If there’s a point you’re trying to make then show it as I’m not doing your research for you.
    Can it for instance refute these facts:
    ✱ elections of March 1973, US-supported opposition parties hope to win two-thirds of congressional seats, enough to impeach Allende. But they are unable, and his party wins what is perhaps the largest increase in popular votes an incumbent party had ever received in Chile after being in power for more than two years.
    ✱ With at least half the population suffering from malnutrition and the country facing severe shortages of food, housing, health care, and education after years of capitalist governments, Allende nearly wins elections for the Presidency in 1958 and 1964, despite enormous criminal CIA manipulation of the elections.
    ✱ “The US has no vital national interests within Chile. The world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende government.” CIA study, 9/7/70
    ✱ “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” Henry Kissinger referring to Chilean voters in 1970
    ✱ “The coup has]no pretext or justification that it can offer to make it acceptable in Chile or Latin America. It therefore would seem necessary to create one to bolster what will probably be the claim to a coup to save Chile from communism.” cable sent from CIA HQ to Santiago, 10/19/70

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    What are you talking about? I didn't ask you to do any research. The point is right there in the article if you had bothered to read it:

    “In this post, I argue, regardless of whether the “blockade” was as extensive or as maliciously intended as its maximalist critics allege, it did not make any difference.”

    The author is not denying that there was a blockade, or any of your points, but saying that it had little effect on Chile's economy and instead Allende's policies caused the crisis.

    Do you understand that?

    @Chicureo
    You don't think the article by the author on Pinochet's economy is so excellent then?

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Why won't you defend Maduro? ..his and Chavez's economic policies, ..had something in common with Allende’s?”
    Why would I do that when I consider Marxist economic interpretations as nonsense. In what way were their economic policies similar to Allende’s?
    “blockade” was as extensive or as maliciously intended as its maximalist critics allege, it did not make any difference.”
    I think Nixon’s “make their economy scream“ puts that speculation to bed. Since we’ll never know as the US did everything in its power to wreck their economy from the get go.
    That piece of sophism is similar to the burglar blaming the householder for having material temptations.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    You still don't get it. You're claiming two separate things:

    1. That the US government tried to harm Chile's economy.

    2. That all or most of the economic problems were caused by US actions, rather than by Allende's policies and/or the fall in the price of copper.

    You have given evidence for (1), and I agree it is true. Now you need to give evidence for (2).

    The author of that article disagrees with (2) and shows evidence, and that is why I find it more convincing.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    If the government of the day can’t exercise free and unfettered control over their own economy. Then it is impossible to state with any certainty as to how or what their ineffective control could have achieved. Whereas, the US we know with a certainty considered . “As Helms(CIA Director) reported in his notes, there were two points of view. The “soft line” was, in Nixon’s words, to “make the economy scream.” The “hard line” was simply to aim for a military coup.
    As both events occurred, therefore it is self evident as to who was in the driving seat. As there was nothing that the Chilean government could do to offset such massive illegal interference. https://chomsky.info/secrets04/

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    “As both events occurred, therefore it is self evident as to who was in the driving seat.”

    No it isn't. It's your unsupported opinion against someone who has examined the evidence and presented it.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    Dearest anarchist Terence,
    Your democratically elected bolivarian comrade Nicolas will gladly welcome your Marxist abominable opinions into the current glorious paradise revolution of Venezuela so book yourself a ticket to Caracas and join the party to help resist those evil gringos, because those nefarious North Americans are also presently interfering in Chavez's legacy and hopefully for the sake of the suffering populace, it will be helpful in bringing down its despicable government.
    By the way, you're losing terribly in your intellectual debate with Señor Demon Tree.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Someone who has examined the evidence and presented it” From an unknown author of unknown qualifications, That might well have been paid by unknown sources. What specific evidence is there that that discounts the effects of a foreign government instrumenting a coup, and engaging in economic warfare. For example the CIA bribing the nations truckers to stage a crippling strikes. From 1970 to 1973 in a country of less than 10 million people, at least $8 million was officially spent by the US government on destabilizing the Allende government, an amount greatly enhanced by the collapse of the escudo and extensive use of the Chilean black market for foreign exchange.
    Chicureo
    I’m apposed to marxism as I am to your fascism preferring a central position away from those that hold such indoctrinated views. What political scientists refer to as the “murky middle”
    So you saviour your “strong right wing views”, “Pinochet was wrong in some things he did, but Salvador Allende was no angel either”
    “What we experienced in Chile was a civil war” It wasn’t it was a coup that encountered minimal opposition.
    “In Chile, the congress and the supreme court tried to stop Allende's policies with no result.” The former didn’t have the required majority while the latter didn't have a legal basis.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    Tovarish Terrence, my marxismo-leninismo adversary,

    So you're claiming over 40,000 drivers went on an indefinite truck strike, paralyzing the country because the CIA bribed them? And they paid off all the miners to strike as well? Eight million dollars only goes so far. People here were angry here and it was because of the horrible mismanagement of our country.

    And yes, the USA was making Allende's government's life difficult, but the Russians were sending lots of aid in compensation. “Soviet economic support included over $100 million in credit, 17,000 tons of frozen fish, several factories, 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat, and more than a million tins of condensed milk.”

    Chile was their Communist beachhead into South America and they were planning far more aid to support it. So yes, the Gringos were highly motivated to see the government to fall, but it was the Chilean housewives, who went in the streets of Santiago protesting Allende's rule banging their pots and pans.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo aka “the fascista hustler”.
    “Eight million dollars only goes so far” “at least $8 million was officially spent by the US government on destabilizing the Allende government” That is only what is acknowledged, it apparently was sufficient “Among those heavily subsidized, the sources said, were the organizers of a nationwide truck strike that lasted 26 days in the fall of 1972, seriously disrupting Chile's economy and provoking the first of a series of labor crises for President Allende.” http://www.nytimes.com/1974/09/20/archives/cia-is-linked-to-strikes-in-chile-that-beset-allende-intelligence.html?_r=0
    “Though intelligence documents from the 1973 coup period have been declassified since 1999, the CIA continues to censor them”
    w ww.mintpressnews.com/cia-continues-cover-involvement-chiles-911.../220254/
    “Chile was their(Russia) Communist beachhead into South America” More unsupported pro Pinochet propaganda
    “As is typical around the world, the US claims publicly to be fighting the “international communist conspiracy”, while acknowledging privately the absence of any such threat: “Soviet overtures to Allende characterized by caution and restraint”; “Soviet desire to avoid” another Cuba-type commitment; Russians “advising Allende to put his relations with the United States in orderto ease the strain between the two countries.” US intelligence reports, 1973

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    Guevarism adoring TH

    You sadly lose in this debate because you ignore the far greater amount of Soviet aid that was received in order to prop up a very unpopular regime. It was the proletariat that enthusiastically supported the coup d'état.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo aka “the fascista hustler”.
    “You sadly lose in this debate” I don’t think as you would hardly be described as a winner. When I bring support for all my assertions while you can only offer opinionated empty platitudes.
    Since the US had estopped most external trade or financial channels to Chile. Perhaps you believe it would have been good governance to allow the fifty percent of your fellow citizens that previously suffered from malnutrition to quietly starve to death. At least people like your grand-parents whom had had the good fortune to benefit from the policies of previous governments would not be doubled by needs of those whom had not received such beneficiaries.
    “A very unpopular regime” If so only because of an unjust and undeclared war by the US. If you’r happy being their ‘bitch’ don’t assume your fellow citizens are.

    Dec 05th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    Terry, my logically challenged amigo, you are doing it wrong. You need to come up with a new silly name for him each time or it gets boring.

    Also, speaking of opinionated empty platitudes, that is all you have offered me. When are you going to find some support for them huh?

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “The evidence and presented it” From an unknown author of unknown qualifications, That might well have been paid by unknown sources ”. Is that the best you can do? Better get a truss to support that herniated opinion you'r e dragging on the ground behind you.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Terry the humbug,
    Your weirdly constructed, overblown insults are the best part of arguing with you. But you need to be more original with names. Would you like me to suggest some for you?

    That unknown author includes evidence in his arguments, whereas you have given nothing but opinionated empty platitudes. Try addressing them, or find some evidence rather than repeating yourself endlessly.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “You need to come up with a new silly name for him each time or it gets boring”
    No! I don’t as I aim for accuracy and not for titillation. If you examine the moniker he uses and view his political opinions you’ll see I’m right on the money. If it’s accurate why would I change it?
    “You have given nothing but opinionated empty platitudes” After correctly addressing the failings of the of your citation. My next paragraph reiterates an earlier quote I had used that had been properly cited.
    So where is the evidence to support your assertion. Try to get your foot out of your mouth before you answer.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Chicureo

    Trotsky Menshevik Hill

    DemonTree has made a complete monkey out of your Marxist idealist opinions.
    As I stated earlier, Dr. Salvador Allende championed the poor and during the first two years achieved a great deal of popularity from the common people with programs such as free milk for children, lower food prices and strengthening labor rights. His successors have continued the social progress, but much more still needs to be done. What happened from 1971 until 1989 you're just not intelligent enough to comprehend.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jolene

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Chicureo aka “the fascista hustler”.
    So to summarize, you believe it would have been good governance to allow the fifty percent of your fellow citizens that previously suffered from malnutrition to quietly starve to death. So moving from the ridiculous to the absurd you are vainly placing your reliance on this? “DemonTree has made a complete monkey out of your Marxist idealist opinions.” “The evidence and presented it” From an unknown author of unknown qualifications, That might well have been paid by unknown sources ”.
    Incidentally, if it where true if I held any such opinions I would have so stated. Since I have stated the contrary it shows the level of your desperation of your failure to make any headway with your nonsensical claptrap.
    Jolene
    If hell freezes over you might get laid in 25 years

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Terry, my bewildered buddy, I think I've worked out your problem. You don't know how to evaluate an argument, do you? In fact, I don't think you understand that it's possible. You think the only way to judge between competing opinions is to see who is the most 'expert' of the people making them.

    I bet you don't understand what evidence is, either.

    “So to summarize, you believe it would have been good governance to allow the fifty percent of your fellow citizens that previously suffered from malnutrition to quietly starve to death.”

    I'm sure if Chicureo held any such opinion, he would have so stated. ;) If you want him to take you at your word, you should do the same for him.

    As for your silly names, they're about as accurate as Chicureo's,  and far less entertaining. Go on, use your imagination a little.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “You don't know how to evaluate an argument, do you?” Apparently I do as I’ve blown your sophistic attempts at presenting one. Such as an obscure anonymous author using a mere blog isn’t a credible source. “You think the only way to judge between competing opinions is to see who is the most 'expert' of the people making them.” Well, sunshine thats the way its done in the real world.
    “I’m sure if Chicureo held any such opinion, he would have so stated.” Conversely, If he didn’t one would expect a denial.
    “silent consent is same as expressed consent;… This is an implied term in law....”
    Soma's Dictionary Of Latin Quotations Maxims And Phrases
    “..as for your silly names, they're about as accurate as Chicureo’s” So your scholarship is so limited that you don’t even even know what his ‘moniker’ means, but your still prepared to offer an opinion out of ignorance.
    It’s duly noted that neither of you can no longer sustain your own discredited arguments and thus are reduced to defending the others ’sorry ass’.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Terence “Banana Brained” Hill
    “Well, sunshine thats the way its done in the real world.”

    Aha, I was right! FYI, that is certainly NOT how it is done by people with half a clue. Here, read this link:

     http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=341

    It's not perfectly applicable as it's about evaluating an academic argument, but it should give you an idea. You appear to be stuck on the first step, and you're not even doing a good job at that, as you never check for other authors whose argument undermines yours (or even the same author in the very next paragraph!)

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    Evaluating arguments is not a blank cheque, if for example one writer is high school dropout and another is an expert on subject it’s no brainer. Check any competent court to see how they evaluate competing opinions.
    “A fact is a statement that can be proven true, while an opinion is a statement that cannot be proven true. Facts can be confirmed by checking books or reliable internet sources” http://www.education.com/lesson-plan/can-you-prove-it-facts-and-opinions/
    Which is wherever possible I rely on facts alone. When that isn’t available then I rely on the best expertise. Which is my most recent citations are The New York Times, US intelligence reports, The University of Michigan, The Noam Chomsky Website, The Nixon Administration and the Death of Allende's Chile: A Case of ...By Jonathan Haslam. While you want to claim equal standing for individuals who can offer no credentials for their alleged expertise, give your head a shake
    “Between dogmatism on one hand and skepticism on the other, there is a middle way, which is our way - open minded certainty.” an adage he often used by Hardy Cross Dillard who served as a judge on the ICJ
    “Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair.” ― George Burns

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Terrible Hill
    No, evaluating arguments is not a blank cheque, but that does not mean giving up before we've even started. Yes, the expert will be right and the dropout wrong 99 times out of 100, but we can still look at the arguments of each, see if the evidence checks out, examine the logic and look for those fallacies you love so much. That is the whole point of an argument; so we can see for ourselves, because we shouldn't blindly trust even an expert.

    Your link is all very well for third graders, but as adults we should be able to consider who writes those books and the reliable internet sources, and how they determine what is true. For example, if you want to know g, the acceleration due to gravity at sea level, you may consult a physics text book and find the right answer. But how did the physicists determine it? If you go back far enough, there was no book to consult.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “NOT how it is done by people with half a clue” Well you obviously are one with half a clue, I try to rely on a full clue myself rather than going off at half cock.
    “Your link is all very well for third graders,” Dito
    “If you go back far enough, there was no book to consult” The point being?

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Terence the Terminally Clueless
    Your link is literally to a lesson plan for third graders! It's a perfectly appropriate view of the topic - for kids aged 7-9. Are you aged under 10? If not, it is a far too simplistic view for you.

    My link, on the other hand, is advice to students from their university. Because this is the way it is done in the real, adult world.

    “'If you go back far enough, there was no book to consult' The point being?”

    The point is that knowledge does not spontaneously generate in books, or in the minds of experts. Your 3rd grade lesson does not tell the whole truth. Ultimately, facts are confirmed by experiments, observations and research. Then they are put in books so that other people can look them up and save time. You think something is confirmed as a fact because it's in a book, but that is the wrong way round. It is put in a book because it has been confirmed as a fact by other methods.

    If two people disagree, you don't have to decide who is right by which is more famous, you can do your own experiments and/or research and see what the evidence says. Similarly you can examine the logic of their arguments, just as my link says. If there are logical flaws then it is a bad argument, even if the evidence is true.

    Google 'evaluating arguments' and you will see that I am not making this up. As long as you don't understand how to do it you will continue committing all kinds of fallacies, and will be unable to convince anyone who does not already agree with you.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “My link, on the other hand, is advice to students from their university.” Which is simply a low level generalization which any one with a modicum of education would be familiar with. But, it in no way refutes the factual evidence against the US. Nor does your reliance on an uncredited anonymous source refute it. Who may well have been paid by an interested party to muddy the waters. So it recieves the acceptance that it deserves.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Terence the Confabulator
    “Which is simply a low level generalization which any one with a modicum of education would be familiar with.”

    Does that mean you agree now that you can use the methods it lists to evaluate the truth of an argument?

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “You agree now that you can use the methods it lists to evaluate “
    I have no idea, as soon it’s credibility was impeached why would I waste any further of my time on a such deeply flawed evaluation.
    If you wish to proffer specifics from the materials that formed the authors reliance I’ll examine such particulars. But like I previously stated I’m not engaging in research to support your assertions. You’ll have dig in and do your own investigation.

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Denialist Hill
    My link was certainly not intended to refute any evidence against the US, but to show you that it is possible to evaluate an argument on its own merits, even without knowing who wrote it.

    Being anonymous does not make the argument flawed. It can be right or wrong independent of who wrote it, and whether you know who the author is or not.

    I suppose it would be too hard for you to evaluate the article on Chile for yourself since you've never done it before, and it is quite impossible for me to do your thinking for you, especially when you don't believe a word I say. How about I find some simple examples of good and bad arguments, so you can get some practice?

    Dec 06th, 2017 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Being anonymous does not make the argument flawed”
    Sorry but no where in academia would such an anonymous work be acceptable. The most important criteria is “peer evaluation”. How can they do that?
    If that is criteria that academia requires, since they are the experts on knowledge, then I’m not going to accept a lesser standard just to suit you. So I’ll adhere to the correct standards of rationality.

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Here is one of the most well regarded science journals offering anonymous review. Evidently they agree with me that it is perfectly possible, and thought it worth trying:

    “Starting in March, Nature and the monthly Nature research journals will offer an alternative to conventional peer review. Authors will be able to request that their names and affiliations are withheld from reviewers of their papers — a form of peer review known as double blind. At present, the process is single blind: reviewers are anonymous, but they know the authors’ identities.”

    “Both systems are already in use across scholarly publishing, but there is no consensus on which is best.”

    https://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “..science journals offering anonymous review.that it is perfectly possible, and thought it worth trying”
    I never said it wasn’t possible what I stated is it’s not acceptable. If your so sure dig in and come up with the pay dirt like I asked,
    “strong demand in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, leading to price controls to limit rising domestic copper prices”
    h ttps://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/base-metals-investing/copper-investing/historical-copper-prices-china-us-supply-demand-porphyry-mining/
    So copper prices were under price controls, as there shouldn’t be a drop if there is a strong demand.
    In addition the copper production was shut down due to prolonged strikes, just like the trucking industry

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    You said “The most important criteria is “peer evaluation”. How can they do that?”

    As you saw in my link, they certainly can conduct peer review of an anonymous paper, and the answer to how is that it's done the exact same way they peer review one that isn't anonymous. Because as I have been telling you, they are reviewing the content of the paper, not the author.

    But it looks like you are finally ready to talk about the issues, rather than dismiss the article out of hand.

    The most relevant thing in your linked article is the chart of copper prices over time. It's a pity they don't have a table of the raw data, but it does seem to confirm what the anonymous author says “And the international price of copper, Chile’s main source of foreign exchange earnings, was 25% lower in 1971-72 than in 1970, until it recovered in 1973.” I'd like to see a lot more data, like how much copper Chile exported in those years, what their total exports were worth and what percentage was copper. It would also be interesting to compare charts showing Chilean GDP and world copper prices over the years.

    Do you have any evidence that the US caused the strikes of the copper producers? The mines had been nationalised, so why would they go on strike unless they were unhappy with how the government was treating them?

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Confabulator”! You must be confusing me for someone else since I have never posted a deliberate untruth. Unlike your sophistic attempts, for anything I claim I meet my burden of proof.
    “Evidently they agree with me that it is perfectly possible” “Are withheld from reviewers of their paper” It was facilitated solely and only to peer reviewers. This is not what your source is doing, another failed piece of sophism.
    So quit trying to foist your unaccredited probably CIA generated disinformation as genuine academic research, as most true scholars are not incognito. As their credo is publish or perish.
    You need to practise what you preach to wit: “Who wrote the information?
    Quality web resources will name the author .. that is responsible for the information, be wary of any websites that do not give this information. Establishing who has written the information is important for determining reliability.”
    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/index.php?id=332

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Sigh. It's hard work trying to spoon feed you information.

    Confabulator doesn't mean liar. Here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/confabulation, definition (2) is the one you want.

    I believe that you don't deliberately lie, however, what you post is usually wrong, because you don't know how to tell truth from falsehood. This is why I so frequently disagree with you, not because I support some random people that I mostly disagree with.

    My real aim here is not to convince you of anything about Chile, but to correct your mistaken ideas of what constitutes evidence and proof, so you can understand what makes a good argument, and understand why I disagree with you. (Spoiler: It's because I believe you are wrong. No more, no less.)

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Do you have any evidence that the US caused the strikes of the copper producers?”
    “The U.S. responded to the nationalization of the copper mines and Allende’s other “socialist” reforms by compiling an operation to instigate the fall of the Allende administration. The U.S. funded a strike at the mine “El Teniente”, which was organized by the Christian Democrat party. This helped to establish a base of supporters for the forthcoming military coup. It disseminated an image of discontent and chaos, and attacked the strategic sector of the Chilean economy.
    Their strategy mainly evolved strangling the Chilean economy. A man by the name of Kennekott, (whose director, Robert Haldemann, became an advisor to president Nixon in matters of copper), obtained an embargo from the U.S. for Chilean ships carrying copper. This embargo suspended exports.”
    www.mtholyoke.edu/~gorcz20d/3.html

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Well, that's an improvement as it's at least relevant, but although there is a bibliography it doesn't show the evidence itself. I'd like to see the quotes from those books and see where they got their information from.

    For example, interviews with the striking truckers where they admit they were bribed to go on strike would be more convincing. It would also be good to know how effective that attempt to embargo the copper was.

    By the way, I do think it is perfectly reasonable to consider who the author of an article is, and to be wary of an anonymous author. But it is wrong to dismiss it without even looking at it, and even more wrong to think the author should be your sole criterion.

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “Confabulator doesn't mean liar”
    3 : to fill in gaps in memory by fabrication. A major characteristic of brain- damaged patients is the tendency to confabulate
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confabulate
    “You don't know how to tell truth from falsehood” So if the following doesn’t cover please enlighten me as to better reliances
    1. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies) it.
    2. “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
    Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.
    plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
    My dictionaries/thesauruses indicate ”opinion - belief, judgement, thought(s), school of thought, thinking, way of thinking
    Which prior to that states,, they're only true or false so it doesn't comply with the analogy of being unprovable, as you are attempting to foist on them.
    So if its unproven it must false, according to the accepted criteria and therefore a lie, since its impossible to be anything else, as it can never be “both or neither..”

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    ”In psychiatry, confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a disturbance of memory, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.[1] People who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from “subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications”,[2] and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

    Words can have more than one meaning, but that is the one I was thinking of. I already said I don't think you are lying.

    As for your list, they are all useless for determining whether a claim is true or not.

    The appropriate method to use depends on the subject. In maths you use logic to prove things, starting from simple axioms which cannot be proved.

    In science you do experiments, which should be repeatable by other people. These can never absolutely prove any theory, but we can get very close.

    In history you look for evidence, particularly original sources. Your declassified CIA files are good evidence of what the US government was doing to Chile, and their aims. Those tables in the article I linked to are also evidence. To properly judge them we ought to look up his references and see if they say what he quotes, and also consider if they actually show what he says they do.

    Here are some examples of bad arguments (there are a lot more) :

    “Canada must be a poor country because the average income is only $3000 per year.”

    This is not true because the figure I gave is wrong.

    “Canada must be a poor country because there were only 379,412 horses living in Ontario in 2006.”

    This fact is true, but irrelevant. It does not prove Canada is a poor country.

    Dec 07th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “You don't know how to tell truth from falsehood”
    Well I can tell you are in your last post’ The use of and/or
    1. A red herring
    2. A non sequitur

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yes, you are right. The second one is a non sequitur. The first statement is logically correct, but it's wrong because the premise isn't true.

    Most errors in logic are not as obvious as that one. But the point is, you do not need a vast knowledge of horses, or to quote any experts to see why the argument is incorrect.

    This is what I am generally doing when I criticise your arguments. I'm not denying your evidence is true, but I don't agree that it shows what you say it does.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “But the point is” Your deliberate evasion and off-topic response are all the hallmarks that goes to ‘your state of mind’ which is glaringly obvious. So other than your denial you can’t refute my assertion that I can tell “truth from falsehood.” Simply by applying the rules of logic over the course of exchanges. So cut the crap, your well and truly vanquished.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Oh man. I'm not trying to prove you can *never* tell truth from falsehood. I purposely gave you trivial examples so you could easily see why they were wrong!

    I'm not trying to prove anything right now, I am trying to explain something to you. Do you understand that? Are you willing to listen and try to understand what I am saying, even if you don't see the point straight away?

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “I purposely gave you trivial examples” No you didn’t you took evasive action to hi-jack the topic, because you couldn’t meet your burden of proof. If you want preach get in a pulpit. I’m ‘free, white and over 21’ I certainly don’t need any lessons from you concerning the issues on this thread, as this isn’t exactly my first rodeo.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Scroll up and read what I wrote above:

    ”My real aim here is not to convince you of anything about Chile, but to correct your mistaken ideas of what constitutes evidence and proof, so you can understand what makes a good argument, and understand why I disagree with you. (Spoiler: It's because I believe you are wrong. No more, no less.)”

    I'm not trying to hijack the topic, this IS the topic. I CANNOT prove anything to you until you understand what proof is, so I am trying to explain it and correct your many many misunderstandings.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    “What you post is usually wrong, because you don't know how to tell truth from falsehood.” is what you stated at http://en.mercopress.com/2017/11/30/ara-san-juan-since-falklands-conflict-buenos-aires-and-london-have-never-been-closer/comments#comment478492 Which you followed with. “As for your list, they are all useless for determining whether a claim is true or not.” My list contains the accepted form of onuses, and the accepted criteria for evaluating opinions, so the contents of my list contain the acceptable verifications which you without any evidence deny.
    Now you try to evade the issue by stating. “I’m not trying to prove you can *never* tell truth from falsehood.”
    Which obviously, is a clear contradiction. So all you’ve proved is that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Your list has as much to do with telling truth from falsehood as the number of horses in Ontario do with whether Canada is a poor country. It's nothing but a red herring. When you said my examples were false you did not use anything from your list at all, you looked for mistakes in the logic, and you found them.

    Here, try another one:

    There has never been a Canadian Prime Minister who was born in the USA, therefore no one who was born in the USA can become Canadian PM.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    Thank you for confirming my opinion confirming yourself. As yet again you have failed to substantiate your claims “you don't know how to tell truth from falsehood … your list, they are all useless for determining whether a claim is true or not.” Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies) it. Therefore, your failure confirms there is no truth to your claim. As “Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
    Therefor thanks again for proving you’re a confirmed liar

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Oh Terry. I thought I was getting through to you a little, but evidently not. I have never deliberately lied on this website, you just want to believe that because then you don't have to face the fact you could be wrong about something. Be brave and take an honest look at what you are saying.

    Since you are not willing to talk honestly but prefer to continue deluding yourself, I am giving up trying to help you now. I will continue to point it out on other threads when your arguments are wrong. I don't care if it upsets you, because I think the truth is more important. It's sad that you can't see that, but too bad.

    Dec 08th, 2017 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Demonstrator the slavish follower
    Your done like dinner revealed in your true capacity, devoid of any moral standing. A pathetic lying little troll.

    Dec 09th, 2017 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!