A NeoCon(servative)ic View of the State of the World

Great Debates
61

Could you please be more specific? What exactly are you representing with the words “polite” & “impolite”?
W/o knowing what you’re saying, this looks like an odd analogy.

If possible, please link to where you found neocons stating something similar to what you’ve posted.

An explicitly stated American axiom is that government derives its just powers to govern from the consent of the governed. Ideally, the consent of the governed is insured through the peaceful exercise of the governed’s right to alter their government. In order to protect the governed’s right to deny consent, the powers of government are bound by law.

Another American axiom is that Liberty is greater than Life.
When called, we’ve bargained one for the other more than once, always finding one clearly dearer.

When government usurps the rule of law, the liberty and the rights of the governed are endangered.

Something that justifies disregard for the rule of law and the endangerment of what’s more esteemed than life itself must be very grave threat indeed.

What was the “clear and imminent danger” you mentioned that our invasion of Iraq thwarted, averted or somehow lessened?

If, as has been suggested, we were in violation of a lawfully ratified treaty, then we would be in violation of of the supreme law of the land as per the US Constitution. It is in our best interests that our government be bound by law. Government is subject to the rule of law. Law serves to protect the rights and abilities of the governed to deny consent. Government’s power to act contrary to the law is not derived from the consent of the governed. Government does not have the just power to disregard law. Preservation of the authority of laws over government is essential to insuring governed’s right to deny consent.

If we were in violation of a ratified treaty, (which I’m not sure of for several different reasons on several different counts), I don’t know what it would take for us to withdraw from it.
DtC, surely you know the history and condition of what you were quoting. Is the UN Charter a lawfully ratified treaty made under the authority of the United States? What would it take for the US be quit of its obligations to it if it is a lawfully ratified treaty made under the authority of the United States?

If, as has also been suggested, there was an imminent danger, then what we did in Iraq would fall under the category of preemption. For centuries, international law has recognized the legitimacy of preepmtion when an imminent threat exists. The right to self defense is not abdridged by any laws or treaties that I know of.
It seems you’re saying that not only did the US not act contrary to our laws and treaties, ( the “clear and imminent danger” legitimizes the preemptive invasion of Iraq as crucial to our country’s self defense), but that if we did act contrary to our laws and treaties we did so as a matter of survival. ?

Both of these ideas are predicated on the existence of an imminent threat to the US, (to its very survival even**?**), that the invasion of Iraq somehow ameliorated. This is why the assessment of this threat is of so much importance.

What was the “clear and imminent danger” you mentioned that our invasion of Iraq thwarted, averted or somehow lessened?

62

Cynic, what you’ve done is rude and disgusting.
You owe me an apology, if you’re descent enough.
We may think differently, but what you did is not done.
I never attacked you, and I won’t, not b/c I don’t have my thoughts on what you say, but b/c I don’t do such things.

63

istChristian, which post are referring to? I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Are you referring to the pit thread?

64

Yes, by God, and I think that an apology is in place.

65

Don’t hold your breath.

66

I won’t, I didn’t expect you’ll do it.

67

**How did Allende abrogate the Constitution? Also, do you mean to say that a democratically elected leadership can not change the law?
**

So Bush can just abolish the 1st amendment whenever he wants to? Oh wait, never mind, he can. McCain-Feingold.

**Er. The assasination by CIA of Rene Schneider. US economic blockade of the country. Funding the military and oppositional political groups (such as the fascist PyL). Propaganda through CIA-linked media etc etc. That’s not a passive approach. The US didn’t actually go into Chile and kill Allende, but they did pretty much everything except just that.
**

Blockade? Please. We did nothing beyond what every nation has the right to do: choose who to do business with and who not to do business with. Propaganda, taking sides, these are normal parts of international affairs. If this had been a purely democratic leftist government like that of the Labor government in Britain under Atlee, I could understand the outrage. But Allende was no democrat.

**And here you hit the mark in my opinion. My bolding. Allende nationalising Chiliean industries with American interests/owners.
**

Good international citizens don’t steal the property of others. At least you’ve admitted in a backhand way that the Allende government was not your typical leftist democratic government, but in fact an anti-democratic government moving towards totalitarianism.

**Cite? Unless you ment to say “Pinochet” I’m going to need a cite for this allegation.
**

Allende stated the goals of his government on numerous occasions. It intended to raise the class consciousness of the workers, to engage in class war. “Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism,” as Allende put it. “As for the bourgeois State at the present moment (1971), we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it!” The Chilean opposition and the US government understood what this meant. Further, the US government had infiltrated the high ranks of Popular Unity and knew in detail what Allende’s plans and problems were. It knew that many Popular Unity members wanted a direct, violent confrontation with the capitalists and would institute the necessary steps if the electoral strategy failed. Allende himself, in published conversations with Regis Debray in 1971, agreed that his current policy was only a tactic, that violence was still a possibility. Thus, the Allende government was in a race; the success of the consumerism strategy depended upon the ability to build majority support by the April, 1971 municipal elections or at least before the opposition solidified.8

From this point onwards, the Nixon administration began putting overt and covert pressure do Allende to modify his program. The United States Congress passed the González Amendment in January, ordering US representatives on multilateral lending agencies to vote against loans to governments which expropriated without compensation. President Nixon that same month announced that the United States would not aid countries which did not take reasonable steps to provide adequate compensation or where there were not other policy considerations to warrant aid. In specific reference to Chile he said, " we and other private and public sources of development investment will take account of whether or not the Chilean government meets its international obligations." Aid to Chile dropped. Although the Chilean central bank was able to refinance the debt in January and with the Club of Paris in April, the Washington refused to sign the necessary bilateral agreement to settle the dispute between the two countries. The United States as squeezing Chile in order to force it to negotiate on expropriation.

Explain to me what is unreasonable about this policy that you called an "economic blockade"

Armed workers from Popular Unity created workers’ zones (cordones) near factories and communal commands which only they could enter; they also seized factories (state ownership of factories jumped from substantially in one month), confirming the fears of the opposition. At this point, Allende brought the military into the political arena by appointing three officers to his Cabinet to end the strike and insure the March, 1973 Congressional elections.

In April, Allende overruled the Comptroller-General’s 12 decision on expropriations. In May, the Supreme Court attacked Allende for acting unconstitutionally. Allende vetoed a constitutional amendment which would have excluded 100 acre and smaller farms from expropriation.

http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=671

**I have never met anyone from Chile who wouldn’t have prefered Allende to Pinochet, and aside from the minority that profited from Pinochets opression I doubt there is anyone. How can you claim that it was for the best of the people of Chile what happened? How?! In fact, why do you make this claim?
**

By looking at the right-wing dictatorships that almost all stepped aside as economic conditions improved and citizens became more assertive as a result. Compare that to nations like Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, socialist economies that are broken, the people are broken, and there is little if any dissent. If Allende had won, it is very likely that his party would still be tyrannizing a broken down impoverished state.

Don’t forget the anthrax.

Which was used when and against whom? We sell anthrax to a lot more countries than just Iraq. It has other purposes besides military.

68

First let me point out something in your arguments that I find interesting. You both claim that the US didn’t do it and that it was the right thing to do. Why? If you didn’t do something, what does it matter if it was right or wrong? If what was done was right, why wouldn’t you admit to doing it?

See what I am getting at here? Anyway…

I would assume that any democratic givernment can change whatever “constitution”, I know the US constitution has been changed. I asked you to clarify what you ment when you claimed Allende was abolishing the Chilean constitution, you did not respond, but instead got defensive for some reason, can I get an answer now?

I agree that it is a nations right to chose who to do business with, I didn’t say that the US didn’t have the right to blockade Chile, I only said that they did, in response to your claims that the US didn’t have anything to do with the situation. Also, I am not “outraged”, I am quite calm about it.

Now you make another statement, that Allende wasn’t a democrat. He was democratically elected, he didn’t attempt to stop the elections… how was he not a democrat? I hope you can back this up, and will do so without more handwaving.

I “admitted in a backhand way”?:dubious:
Allende was a socialist marxist, I guess that isn’t a “typical” leftist democratic government but it is a democratic government nonetheless, not, as you state an anti-democratic one. Allende was democratically elected and made no attempts to stop public elections. Totalitarianism? Once again, you make completely unsubstantiated claims. I will have to ask for a cite here as well.

These two allegations made by you, you still have not responded to:

Could you please substantiate them?
From *your own source:

Allende, according to an unsubstianted claim from you, ‘abrogated’ the constitution so I don’t see how Pinochet could discard it… but whatever.

So the facts are that the US helped overthrow a democratically elected government, and supported the military junta who proceeded to disband congress, to arrest, torture and murder thousands of citizens, discard the constitution and remove the free press. These are facts that you conceede, and you still think that this was the “right thing to do”. And you then wonder why we need international law when obviously the US gvt will only make ‘right’ decisions? :dubious:
My analysis is that your fundamental belief is that the US can not be wrong and that socialism = evil, and that your arguments are somewhat desperate attempts to arrive at and defend that belief. It’s not rational.

Let me present a rational opinion based on facts that you can have with regards to what happened in Chile in the 70’s:

It was in the US best interest, economically, to overthrow the democratic government and support a dictator that was more US-friendly. To the US, its economical interests are more important then the humanitarian interests of another nation. That Pinochet mistreats the population is none of the US business, the US should only worry about how it effects them economically and economically, Pinochet was a better choice for us then Allende.

That is a logical and rational opinion. I happen to disagree with it on other grounds and would debate it, but it is rational and based on facts. Yours isn’t. Now, is there any chance that you will change your views and adopt that, so we can argue that instead?

69

Eeep! Should have previewed, sorry.

70

I think I see where you went wrong, Stoney. Permit me to clarify.

American citizens are guaranteed the right to vote for the government that most benefits American interests, this is the fundamental fact of our Republic. But we are idealists, revolutionaries, the blood of Tom Paine yet flows in our veins. We hold the rights to be human rights, universal in thier application. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the Chilean people are equally deserving of the opportunity to vote in such a way as to further American interests.

If the Chilean people’s God-given right to do what we tell them is abrogated, we have a moral obligation to correct that.

71

Here’s more by another neocon.

72

Stoneburg, I said we didn’t have anything to do with the coup itself.

We did choose sides. We did squeeze Chile economically.

Even if you believe the US was behind the coup, it wasn’t done for economic reasons, but for geopolitical reasons. The US did not want Chile going over to the Soviet side as Cuba had done.