Castro is sooooooo cool

[James Glass]

I have little interest in the subject at hand, so instead of really contributing, I’ll just post a picture of a hot chick.

[spunkloaf]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough (although a fascist USA would not have tolerated that) but what about two, three, or four?

That was the thinking during the Cold War. Look at Guatemala, 1954 - all that effort to manufacture a coup and install a dictator two years before the president was up for re-election anyway. That was pre-Cuban revolution and the CIA's heydey of creativity.

US intervention in Latin America has decreased over the past half century for various reasons. Now we can afford to allow a disaster like Chavez outlive his welcome. We don't have to be the bad guys anymore thank goodness.

What would have happened if Chavez stays in power?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough (although a fascist USA would not have tolerated that) but what about two, three, or four?

That was the thinking during the Cold War. Look at Guatemala, 1954 - all that effort to manufacture a coup and install a dictator two years before the president was up for re-election anyway. That was pre-Cuban revolution and the CIA's heydey of creativity.

US intervention in Latin America has decreased over the past half century for various reasons. Now we can afford to allow a disaster like Chavez outlive his welcome. We don't have to be the bad guys anymore thank goodness.

What would have happened if Chavez stays in power?

Cool American rebels will still be hip cats.

[conleys ghost]

what you say is the left is really just teenagers trying to rebel against the man

they'll wear their che/castro/cccp shirts or whatever, but they dont know what it means

it doesnt bother me, there are a lot more pressing problems

shoot we almost solved the energy crisis a few hours ago 

[Scaybeeez]

US intervention in Latin America has decreased over the past half century for various reasons. Now we can afford to allow a disaster like Chavez outlive his welcome. We don't have to be the bad guys anymore thank goodness.

I'm not sure I believe that U.S. intervention in Latin American has decreased over the last half century.  The U.S. was heavily involved in the Contra War, in the fight against the Salvadoran rebels, etc. in the 1980s.  Reagan was practically obsessed with the region and since that time we've seen the invasion of Panama, several invasions of Haiti, and pretty blatent U.S. activities against FARC in Colombia.  And that's just the overt stuff.  The covert stuff, the aid to Haitian rebels, the extent of U.S. involvement in anti-Chavez activities, etc. all remain unknown for the time being - and will until those documents become declassified.

Also, I see no reason to believe that the U.S. now feels it can AFFORD to allow some room for people like Chavez.  Anti-Chavez activities, like the coup, almost certainly had U.S. involvement on some level.  Given our history in the region, I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. has no hand in anti-Chavez propaganda and organizing efforts in Venezuela either.  If anything, the U.S. sees no real ALTERNATIVE to the "Pink Tide".  Reagan milked the only real alternative we had (military rule) to death and turned Latin America into a graveyard.  There's no going back to that.  Especially with so much of American energy focused on the Middle East.

[Scaybeeez]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough

You talk as if Chile becoming a Soviet satellite was inevitable had Allende remained in power, but that really isn't the case.  Allende wasn't taking marching orders from Moscow...  The U.S. probably could have maintained a working relationship with Chile and kept it out of the Soviet sphere WITHOUT the coup.  Same way it did with Bolivia under Eisenhower.  In that case, we stepped in to provide Bolivia with the aid it needed and it remained a friendly country (this was done without bloodshed).

The amount to which U.S. actions like the Chilean coup have tarnished our reputation is immeasurable...and could have been avoided.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

In the case of Chile, it was not in our strategic interest to have a Soviet satellite in our backyard. One Cuba is enough

You talk as if Chile becoming a Soviet satellite was inevitable had Allende remained in power, but that really isn't the case.  Allende wasn't taking marching orders from Moscow...  The U.S. probably could have maintained a working relationship with Chile and kept it out of the Soviet sphere WITHOUT the coup.  Same way it did with Bolivia under Eisenhower.  In that case, we stepped in to provide Bolivia with the aid it needed and it remained a friendly country (this was done without bloodshed).

The amount to which U.S. actions like the Chilean coup have tarnished our reputation is immeasurable...and could have been avoided.

Tarnished our reputation? With whom? You? International Socialism? 

With Allende in power Chile could easily have become a Soviet satellite. He won the election with KGB cash and by a slim margin.

KGB money was more precisely targeted. Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who urgently came to Chile from Mexico City to help Allende. The original allocation of money for these elections through the KGB was $400,000, and additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende [1]. It is believed that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allende won by a narrow margin of 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast. After the elections, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained a permission for additional money and other resources from the Central Committee of the CPSU to ensure Allende victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that KGB "will carry out measures designed to promote the consolidation of Allende's victory and his election to the post of President of the country" [1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_presidential_election%2C_1970

Now we know all monday morning quarterbacks worth their salt would do things differently but you aren't even making a good argument in hindsight.

[spunkloaf]

Ah.  So, D-wang supports our nation spending OUR TAX MONEY to advertise BAD propaganda to other countries about their OWN damn elections--and then commends US involvement in killing those people when they didn't vote how we wanted them to.  Lol.

D-wang, there is no way in HELL you can even come close to proving this was becoming a "socialist satellite" in our back yard.  It's all speculation.  IT'S ALL SPECULATION.

Just like WMD in Iraq.  It's so EASY to believe, until we get there and don't find any--then it doesn't matter anyways, because we're already doing other things and WMD is not a concern anymore.


So far I have learned:

You hate democracy.  People can't be trusted; they need to be babysat.

You support America intimidating other countries for trivial and speculative purposes.

You can't argue.  When somebody brings up a good point, you--like grump--go directly for their character and attack them instead of what they say.  It's an attempt on your part to ruin the person's credibility so that NOTHING they ever say will be taken SERIOUSLY again.  Fascism.

You're ok with our government spending OUR tax money to meddle in other countries' business; and you unquestionably accept that it is for the purpose of keeping Communism and Socialism away from the US.  You also reject any notion that there could be real reasons behind it, which includes American interest in wealth and control.

You support dictators.

Any rebuts?

[Vermouth]

I'm not sure I believe that U.S. intervention in Latin American has decreased over the last half century.  The U.S. was heavily involved in the Contra War, in the fight against the Salvadoran rebels, etc. in the 1980s.  Reagan was practically obsessed with the region and since that time we've seen the invasion of Panama, several invasions of Haiti, and pretty blatent U.S. activities against FARC in Colombia.  And that's just the overt stuff.  The covert stuff, the aid to Haitian rebels, the extent of U.S. involvement in anti-Chavez activities, etc. all remain unknown for the time being - and will until those documents become declassified.

Also, I see no reason to believe that the U.S. now feels it can AFFORD to allow some room for people like Chavez.  Anti-Chavez activities, like the coup, almost certainly had U.S. involvement on some level.  Given our history in the region, I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. has no hand in anti-Chavez propaganda and organizing efforts in Venezuela either.  If anything, the U.S. sees no real ALTERNATIVE to the "Pink Tide".  Reagan milked the only real alternative we had (military rule) to death and turned Latin America into a graveyard.  There's no going back to that.  Especially with so much of American energy focused on the Middle East.

I agree with you. But I don't see a "pink tide" in Latin America. Europe is far more socialist. Other than Cuba and Venezuela, Latin America is completely capitalist. It's much like the US, with power swinging back and forth between conservative and liberal parties, albeit with more corruption. The US's interests in Latin America now are economic not ideological. We supported the anti-Chavez coup, but if the US had wanted to get rid of Chavez in 2002, we would have ... it wasn't worth it.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Vermouth is correct. There is no pink tide largely because Reagan was "obsessed" with Latin America. This pink tide canard is the wishful thinking of those who supported communist revolution in the first place. Communism is a failed system. It failed everywhere and it's last vestiges are buffoons like Hugo Chavez. Is that really the Great (not so) White Hope of the radical Left these days? And as far as Haiti is concerned, who cares? If we could just find a way to reattach it to Africa where it belongs that would be great. Unfortunately, this particular toilet is right off our coast.

[conleys ghost]

Vermouth is correct. There is no pink tide largely because Reagan was "obsessed" with Latin America. This pink tide canard is the wishful thinking of those who supported communist revolution in the first place. Communism is a failed system. It failed everywhere and it's last vestiges are buffoons like Hugo Chavez. Is that really the Great (not so) White Hope of the radical Left these days? And as far as Haiti is concerned, who cares? If we could just find a way to reattach it to Africa where it belongs that would be great. Unfortunately, this particular toilet is right off our coast.

 

[Vermouth]

Haiti is so poor that people have to eat mud. It's very sad.

...With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies.

Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country's central plateau.

The mud has long been used by pregnant women and children here as an antacid and source of calcium. But in places like Cite Soleil, the oceanside slum where Charlene shares a two-room house with her baby, five siblings, and two unemployed parents, cookies made of dirt, salt, and vegetable shortening have become a regular meal...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/01/31/haitians_trick_empty_bellies_with_dirt_cookies/

[conleys ghost]

jeez...now i feel like a real a-hole 

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I was trying to be funny regarding Haiti and I'm glad it was taken that way by some, at least. What is one to do in the case of Haiti and other disasters? Stand off? Get involved regardless of the inevitable fingerpointing? "But what were the real motives for US involvement?" You know, the usual  Marxist myopia?  

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

jeez...now i feel like a real a-hole 

Why? Because Haitians can't take care of themselves? What else can you do but lighten things up?