Reply #179: I dunno, sounds pretty biased, [View All]

[Nadienne]

and innacurate, or at the very least, misleading.

"The Marxist Allende had taken no time in instituting radical economic changes such as land reform and nationalizing business. These policies were initially popular with the poor but detested by the previous ruling elites and middle class. The policies also led to a nearly complete economic collapse, including a 60% inflation rate and plummeting production."

According to Noam Chomsky in Secrets, Lies and Democracy:

"A few days after victory, Nixon called in CIA Director Richard Helms, Kissinger and other for a meeting on Chile... As Helms 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. Our ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry,... was given the job of implementing the 'soft line.'"

In other words, Chile's economy didn't fail because of "Marxist Allende" but because of intervention from the US.

Why would the United States care about Chile?

From the same book:

" called for nationalization of major industries like coper mining, and for a policy of international independence - meaning that Chile wouldn't simply subordinate itself to the US but would take more of an independent path."