Chile to bomb the U.S.A.

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 46

Chile to bomb the U.S.A.

Author:

Topic:

Politics

Posted:

Sep 16, 2001

Comments:

Santiago, Chile (Adequacy News Service) - The government of Chile declared yesterday that, if the U.S.A. government is justified in going to war with Afghanistan over the extradition of Osama Bin Laden, they are justified in going to war with the US over the extradition of Henry Kissinger.

More stories by

	Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
	German, the language of the Nazis
	Women responsible for society's ills
	Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
	The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
	Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
	Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
	Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
	Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
	Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
	Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
	The sky: a revisionist examination
	The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
	The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
	An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
	On criminal language and the word `hacker'
	On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)
	World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'

"Kissinger's crimes have cut short many more people's lives than Osama Bin Laden's," President Lagos of Chile told his people yesterday in a televised address. "It is by the application of the same logical principles shown by the US leadership that we are justified in bombing them."

Henry Kissinger is held responsible for an unknown number of deaths, likely to surpass one million, in places as diverse as East Timor (with 800,000 deaths from the Indonesian invasion in 1978), Cyprus, Chile, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Talking about the U.S. support for the 1973 military coup that brought Pinochet into power, Lagos said, leaning forward intently: "Chile will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts. We will find Kissinger; we will smoke him out of his hole; we will get him running and we'll bring him to justice. We will not only deal with this person who dared attack Chile, we will deal with those who harbor him and feed him and house him."

When questioned about the possibility of Chilean attacks on the U.S.A. costing the lives of civilians, Lagos responded that "We must send a clear message to the world that this kind of act will not go unpunished, and that the evil people who commit this sort of act are going to hear from us."

	I'm impressed (2.71 / 7) (#2)
	by localroger on Sun Sep 16th, 2001 at 05:24:57 PM PST

	If Chile was the world's richest superpower instead of a second-rate banana republic eight thousand miles away, I'd be worried.

	I wouldn't be so sure. (4.50 / 2) (#10)
	by legolas on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 07:04:26 AM PST

	Our friend Afghanistan is a third world country, a half a world away, which is a wreck of poverty, civil war, conquest, and political strife. YET, it scares the USA enough for it to rally with its allies to bomb it. (Not that it will do any good, since it will make desperate people reduced to terrorism - since other pleas for help were ignored - even madder. But that's a debate for another day.) --legolas

	technically... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
	by westgeof on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 10:57:59 AM PST

	Not to be picky or anything, but we really aren't afraid of Afghanistan or the Afghans exactly, but rather the terrorists/freedom fighters hiding out there, among other places. Personally, I pity the Afghans. They're about to get raped big time, probably even more so than they are already doing to themselves... As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	Clarification (4.00 / 4) (#13)
	by localroger on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 04:55:54 PM PST

	The Afghans seem to be living under the delusion that fighting the US will be like fighting the Soviets. The Soviets in Afghanistan, like US in Vietnam, had no clear reason to be there and no clear mandate. As in Vietnam, clever guerrilla warfare finally wore them down. I suspect the Japanese were more formidable opponents than either the Vietnamese or the Afghans, though, and we beat them even though it meant slogging through intestines over half the hunks of rock in the Pacific. There is a simple reason for that. The world's richest and most powerful superpower can pull up alongside even a relatively non-pissant state, knock the stuffing out of it, kill a bunch of people, and there isn't much the lesser state can do except publishing nasty sentiments in the paper. On the other hand when the lesser state gets clever and sucker punches the world's richest and most powerful superpower the sleeping giant awakes and does whatever it takes to crush the offending locust into powder, no matter how much it costs or how many body bags it involves hauling home. The article fails to mention the part where we surprise-attacked Chile killing thousands in a single devastating horrific blow. That kind of thing really gets the citizenry motivated. Chile has the Santiago stadium thing, but that just doesn't give the same kind of video as an air strike. Meanwhile, a certain pissant little wreck of a nation has decided to play the role of Vietnam against us, unaware that it has actually taken on the role of Japan circa 1941. And Afghanistan, friends & neighbors, ain't no Japan circa 1941. The Taliban is crowing that it has 20,000 troops at the ready. In Vietnam we killed hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions (we're not even sure, is that cool or what?). On Okinawa alone, the Japanese lost 20,000 and we still won that battle. The only good to come out of this thing is going to be that the airheads who have been supporting the Taliban and their miserable reign of oppression have all gone looking for rocks to hide under, and we will finally get to do something about these Jerry Falwell clones instead of giving them guns. OTOH by the time we're finished over there there may not be any more minorities and women for them to oppress. Life is hard that way sometimes.

	USA! USA! USA! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 08:17:56 PM PST

	"The world's richest and most powerful superpower can pull up alongside even a relatively non-pissant state, knock the stuffing out of it, kill a bunch of people, and there isn't much the lesser state can do except publishing nasty sentiments in the paper. " Like North Korea, for instance? The US has never successfully fought a war against guerilla fighters. The reason is, air strikes are particularly ineffective against people who aren't using infrastructure like cities.

	slow down, cowboy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 08:11:08 AM PST

	Since WWII, the US has won a single war in which the enemy actually fought back, and that was the Gulf War, with thanks to lots of international support and friendly airports. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and, arguably, Nicaragua? Lost'em. Panama and Grenada? Major victories. War on Drugs? Nope. War on Terrorism? So far, that war has taken a chunk out of your embassies, a warship, your pentagon and your world trade center.

	guerilla fighters (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 08:31:16 PM PST

	Don't you think every last inch of ground taken from the German geriatrics, women, and children during World War II was a fight against guerilla combatants? The reason that the US has failed to win in semi-recent guerilla wars is because there have been political reins placed on the use of military power. In other words, namby-pamby pinko commie scum (see: Hanoi Jane) caused timid lily-livered yellow-belly politicians (see: JFK & his creature, McNamara) to micromanage the conflict in a decidedly unmilitary fashion. If the US military had been given free reign in Vietnam, then the USAF (see: AF General Curtis LeMay) would have pattern bombed the country with nukes and the USARMY would have bulldozed the glowing ashes into a wall between southeast Asia and China. The guerillas would have lost, because they would all have been dead. This is not without precedent. When Rome attacked Carthage, the two cities were approximately equal in size and power (both around half a million inhabitants, each controlling half the Mediterranean basin). Out of the 450,000 inhabitants of Carthage, Rome took home 50,000 women and children in slavery as plunder -- the other 400,000 were dead, the city was leveled (the command was to make sure that not a single brick stood upon another), every outlying village and farm was put to the torch, and all the land was salted into infertility (not unlike a wasteland of atomic fallout). Similarly, when Ghengis Khan conquered Aramakea (a dead empire that hardly anyone has heard of that used to be in a lush verdant country on the eastern shore of the Aral Sea -- now known as the Taklamakhan desert), he built a pyramid of one million severed heads, destroyed a thousand years of irrigation, and hauled whatever hadn't burned back to his capitol in Samarkand. If these terrorist attacks continue, then the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in anger will probably use them again.

	fractured logic (none / 0) (#15)
	by jsm on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 04:41:16 AM PST

	The Afghans seem to be living under the delusion that fighting the US will be like fighting the Soviets. The Soviets in Afghanistan, like US in Vietnam, had no clear reason to be there and no clear mandate. Compared to the USA's fantastically clear war aims of "Kill people! Do stuff!" and obvious mandate to fight a war in Afghanistan because of the possible presence there of a Saudi national who has been assumed but not proved to be financially supporting an organisation based in the USA? Get real. And your analogy with Japan in 1941 omits one detail ... here's a clue ... it starts with "C". ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	C? (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 05:13:34 AM PST

	Starts with a C? Pearl Harbor? No... Hiroshima? No... Hitler? No... Hmmm... Well, actually, I can't figure out just what you mean!

	Carter!!! (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 12:16:58 PM PST

	President Carter!! Hah!

	A little bit too gung ho for me... (none / 0) (#22)
	by Kintara on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 09:13:12 AM PST

	I do think that we need to keep in mind that the Taliban is one of the most terrible opressive governments in the world. I'm sorry, but I'd be rather glad if that government was collapsed. I think this needs to be kept in mind. Regardless, I think that the US won't solve their problem simply by killing all the terrorists they know about. If we're not careful, we'll leave a wake of new ones when we leave. I hope that we can solve this diplomatically. --Kintara

	banana republic (1.00 / 1) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 02:40:03 PM PST

	you are an average "american"Ignorant!.. thats all.

	in full (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 12:17:57 PM PST

	Better an ignorant American, than an enlightened shit-dweller. :) ken

	Responsible? (3.33 / 3) (#4)
	by Kintara on Sun Sep 16th, 2001 at 08:03:45 PM PST

	I don't know the entire story around what Kissinger did. But I would imagine that Nixon would shoulder a large amount of blame for what Kissinger did. I can't imagine that he would keep the president in the dark about at least his general dealings. Of course, Nixon is dead so we won't ever know who really ordered what. Tell me if I'm mistaken. --Kintara

	Kissinger did not work just under Nixon... (4.66 / 3) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 16th, 2001 at 08:12:14 PM PST

	Kissinger kept his job under Ford. Anyway, the point is that the primary historical sources show that Kissinger was involved with these events on quite fine a level of detail. He was delegated a lot of authority. See here.

	Hmm (3.50 / 2) (#6)
	by Kintara on Sun Sep 16th, 2001 at 08:45:37 PM PST

	Well, I'm certainly not going to defend Kissinger further. I'm not a fan.... --Kintara

	Another Today (1.00 / 1) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 12:15:01 PM PST

	:) Kissinger did his duty, and did it well. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the fear which he instilled in our neighbor countries all the world around. America has been powerfull since its inception, Kissinger, along with a handfull of others, insured that we would be feared as well. And for that, we all owe him a hug. --ken "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." William Ralph Inge, D.D. 1860 - 1954 "If I cannot have respect, fear will suffice." -- Napeoleon

	Justified? (4.50 / 2) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 06:11:39 AM PST

	Sure, they're justified. The difference is they won't win, and if they even try to attack we'll annihilate them. The other difference would be that Kissinger is not even arguably a current threat. Also, I don't know the details, but his actions were probably those of the country, so the U.S. has already taken responsibility for those actions. If Chile finds it in its best interests to retailiate against a country which is no longer a threat, bring it on.

	No longer a threat? (3.50 / 4) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 08:32:46 AM PST

	If Chile finds it in its best interests to retailiate against a country which is no longer a threat, bring it on. Of course the US is still a threat. As far as it is concerned, it has both an absolute right for its citizens to live in peace and safety, and also an absolute right to protect its "valid strategic interests". Unfortunately, the second of these "rights" prevents any other country from enjoying the first. When we talk about individuals, we say "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." As long as the US believes it has the right to swing its fists for its own interests, regardless of whose nose is in the way, it will be a constant threat to all other countries (and it is).

	Dancing (1.00 / 1) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 12:07:42 PM PST

	Is Ronald Regan a threat? He's as dirty a criminal as any of the above listed. -ken

	Whoa. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 12:00:50 PM PST

	The other difference would be that Kissinger is not even arguably a current threat. Are you saying he should not be brought to justice for his complicity in somewhere around a million deaths because he is not currently a threat?

	depends on the circumstances (1.00 / 1) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 06:22:22 PM PST

	Are you saying he should not be brought to justice for his complicity in somewhere around a million deaths because he is not currently a threat? No, I'm saying that it would be stupid of Chile to risk the lives of countless citizens of Chile as well as countless innocent Americans to bring to justice someone who is not a current threat (as in will likely never be a threat again). If bin Laden was not a current (and future) threat, I would not support the U.S. going to war over his extradition. The U.S. would be justified (assuming you believe in eye for an eye) in going to war with bin Laden over his extradition, just as Chile would be justified in going to war with the U.S. over the extradition of Kissinger. But it would not be in Chile's best interests to do so. Personally I believe in unlimited and total forgiveness, so I would argue that both "justice" and "revenge" are immoral in situations where there is no further threat, but I haven't taken that particular viewpoint into consideration in my above post.

	Required Kissenger joke: (4.33 / 3) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 06:24:20 AM PST

	Interviewer: Mr. Kissenger, what event in your life are you most proud of? Kissenger: Vell, that vould be 1972 vhen I von the Nobel Peace Prize for endink the var in Vietnam. I: And what would be the event for which you are most ashamed? K: That vould haf to be 1975... vhen the Vietnam var ended.

	Anyone else? (3.25 / 4) (#9)
	by TheReverand on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 06:29:02 AM PST

	I'm reminded of everytime there is some horrible story on slashdot, some idiot cuts and pastes the word "Micro$oft" where all the nouns go. Have fun with this one.

	I applaud the Chileans' actions (none / 0) (#19)
	by ausduck on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 08:24:39 AM PST

	The difference between the results of USian foreign policy and those of the recent World Trade Centre attacks has only been that the Americans have killed slowly, through indirect means (500 000 Iraqi children died in 10 years because of US sanctions, for example), and that American atrocities have been on a much, much, greater scale. Good luck to Chile.

	Call me doubtful but (none / 0) (#21)
	by Kintara on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 09:02:42 AM PST

	I don't think you have any way to know how many children died because of US sanctions. I'm not a fan of them by any means but how would you get that number? Saddam Hussein? Again, I think that just as much blame could be placed at his feet than America. Hussein cares nothing for his people and callously disregards their needs. That said, I do think that the /UN/ sanction (we are the major force of course but it is a UN sanction) is a terrible waste. I doubt that it has accomplished much of anything, except for perhaps keeping Hussein less well armed (perhaps not even that). --Kintara

	Link (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by ausduck on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 06:24:22 PM PST

	See here for the report by Ramsey Clark on the effects of the US-led sanctions on Iraq. I don't doubt that Hussein has been one of the main causes behind the suffering of the Iraqi people, but if the US were to stop punishing the Iraqi people (it hasn't seemed to hurt Hussein too much), their situation would markedly improve.

	I always remember this interview and laugh (5.00 / 2) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 19th, 2001 at 12:56:14 AM PST

	This interview was with Kissinger on BBC Radio 4. Kissinger walked out of the interview because he was not ready for Paxman's uniquely probing questioning technique. Paxman: "It's been 17 years since the last volume of your memoirs. You said you wanted to let the dust settle but [didn't you] need the distance in order to rewrite history?" Kissinger: "No, I based these memoirs on documents which were as valid then as they are now." Paxman describes Kissinger's claim to have ended the cold war as "far-fetched", adding: "What bothers a lot of people is that you seem to ignore the human rights of people within regimes in which you're trying to establish a balance of power." Kissinger: "That's not correct either." Paxman questions support of General Pinochet and undermining President Allende. Kissinger: "We did not support Pinochet. In what way did we support Pinochet?" Paxman: "You supported the military regime." Kissinger: "After the coup we preferred Pinochet to Allende." Paxman: "It doesn't stop there... you're on record justifying the [behaviour of the] Chinese government in Tiananmen Square." Kissinger: "I have never supported what the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square." Paxman: "Did you feel a fraud for accepting the Nobel Prize [for the Indo-China agreement]?" Kissinger (who had been promised the interview would not be too hostile): "I wonder what you do when you do a hostile interview?" Paxman later accuses Kissinger of a "wilful misreading of history". Kissinger: "It may be a misreading but it wasn't wilful." Paxman asks about the "hundreds of thousands of people killed in the bombing of Cambodia". Kissinger: "That's absolutely untrue. We have no evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were killed... I think this is an absolute outrage. It's nonsense." Paxman: "You don't deny [the bombing of Cambodia] was a secret though?... This was a secret operation against a neutral country." Kissinger: "Come on now, Mr Paxman, this was 15 years ago, and you at least have the ability to educate yourself about a lie on your own programme..." Paxman: "What's factually inaccurate?" Kissinger: "That's outrageous."

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.