Castro is sooooooo cool

[conley]

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?

i know...i thought your comment was hilarious (obviously). it does suck. it sucks for them. it's tragic and joking about such things makes it easier to bear. we all have our burdens...my girlfriend traveled extensively through nepal and saw tremendous poverty -- she said those were the happiest people she ever met, far happier than some american w/ a lexus and five tvs. it's all relative and who am i to judge?

[conley]

also not to be a total dick (but i'll be one anyway)

if you're sixteen and starving maybe hold off on the whole motherhood thing 

that pisses me off 

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

also not to be a total dick (but i'll be one anyway)

if you're sixteen and starving maybe hold off on the whole motherhood thing 

that pisses me off 

As a matter of fact, considering the astronomical AIDS rate in some countries maybe hold off the whole sex thing for a bit unless you have reliable protection? Even then, try monogamy?

[Scaybeeez]

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.

Tarnished our reputation with Latin America and the Third World in general.  Today it is well understood that when the United States talks about democracy and peoples' right to self-determination, that it talks out of both sides of its mouth.  The Chilean coup, amongst others, is one of the major reasons for that.

I discussed the Wiki citation over in the other thread a bit.  I'll summarize the major points.  Even if we accept the Wiki citation as fact, which is something I'll have to look at more closely when I get back to town, we also know that the U.S. government and its allies in the business world spent nearly TWICE as much in efforts to keep Allende from winning that election.  So, really, this "Allende would never have won without Soviet aid!" argument doesn't hold much water.  If both the U.S. and Soviets had stayed out of the picture, the evidence indicates that Allende still would have won, probably by an even larger margin.

Also, even if we accept the Wiki link as fact, it does not prove Allende was designing policy around the whims of, or taking marching orders from, Moscow.  If anything, Moscow sending a paltry $400,000 to back a candidate we were spending literally millions upon millions of dollars to oust proves how low this was on Moscow's agenda.

Third, as I've stated before, the world was not black and white, even during the Cold War.  The U.S. had other options, ones that were peaceful and respectful of the wishes of the Chilean voters.  It could have worked with Allende and the Chilean government and kept Chile within the U.S.' sphere the same way Eisenhower did with Bolivia in the 1950s.  Yet Nixon refused to even consider the idea.  You can complain and call this Monday morning quarter backing if you'd like, but from where I'm sitting, that's just bad leadership that ended up harmful to America, and Chile, in the long run.

[Scaybeeez]

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.

I agree that Europe is more socialist, however, I don't think the elections of leftist leaning populists throughout South America should be overlooked.  Though their reforms haven't been completely shocking, it's clear that South America is moving to the left:  Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia, among others.  As a result, renegotiations of contracts with multi-national corporations and battles against privatization of natural resources have become commonplace. 

Central America has been slow to follow this trend, though I don't think it'd surprise anyone if it did in the future.

[Scaybeeez]

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.

Reagan's efforts were mainly focused on Central America, and sure, if we're speaking strictly about Central America, I'd agree, the "Pink Tide" has been largely absent there.  However, in South America, leftist leaning leaders are coming to power one after another across the continent.  Chavez was not the last of a dying breed of political leaders - if anything, he was the opposite.  What he signaled was a shift to the left in South American politics - a shift that is continuing to take place to this day.

Who cares if we orchestrate coups and subvert democracy in Haiti?  Well, the Haitians care.  And every American should, even if they don't.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

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.

Tarnished our reputation with Latin America and the Third World in general.  Today it is well understood that when the United States talks about democracy and peoples' right to self-determination, that it talks out of both sides of its mouth.  The Chilean coup, amongst others, is one of the major reasons for that.

I discussed the Wiki citation over in the other thread a bit.  I'll summarize the major points.  Even if we accept the Wiki citation as fact, which is something I'll have to look at more closely when I get back to town, we also know that the U.S. government and its allies in the business world spent nearly TWICE as much in efforts to keep Allende from winning that election.  So, really, this "Allende would never have won without Soviet aid!" argument doesn't hold much water.  If both the U.S. and Soviets had stayed out of the picture, the evidence indicates that Allende still would have won, probably by an even larger margin.

Also, even if we accept the Wiki link as fact, it does not prove Allende was designing policy around the whims of, or taking marching orders from, Moscow.  If anything, Moscow sending a paltry $400,000 to back a candidate we were spending literally millions upon millions of dollars to oust proves how low this was on Moscow's agenda.

Third, as I've stated before, the world was not black and white, even during the Cold War.  The U.S. had other options, ones that were peaceful and respectful of the wishes of the Chilean voters.  It could have worked with Allende and the Chilean government and kept Chile within the U.S.' sphere the same way Eisenhower did with Bolivia in the 1950s.  Yet Nixon refused to even consider the idea.  You can complain and call this Monday morning quarter backing if you'd like, but from where I'm sitting, that's just bad leadership that ended up harmful to America, and Chile, in the long run.

No, it tarnished our reputation with Leftist intellectuals. Among Leftist intellectuals "it is well understood that when the United States talks about democracy and peoples' right to self-determination, that it talks out of both sides of its mouth." 

We will accept the Wiki article as fact until we have a good reason not to. Is that fair? It is based on excellent scholarship and the testimony of a senior KGB man. The US gov't didn't spend its funds as well as the Soviets but I will assume that you read the quoted passage. I did not scream, "Allende would never have won without Soviet aid!". I simply pointed out that Allende asked for and received Soviet funding directly. Is it not logical to suggest that Soviet funds bought the Soviet government influence? The fact of the matter is that the US and the Soviets did not stay out of the picture nor were they asked to. What you really need to ask yourself is whether you can truly understand US actions outside of a Cold War context.

Sorry, I must disagree. It benefited both Chile and the USA. In the end, we kept Chile in the US sphere (along with most of Latin America) and Chile did relatively well.

I have to ask since you keep mentioning it. Did the Bolivian government make requests for Soviet support/aid? I only briefly researched this this morning. It appears to me that they eschewed Marxism and developed a quasi fascist economic model? I'm not sure though.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

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.

I agree that Europe is more socialist, however, I don't think the elections of leftist leaning populists throughout South America should be overlooked.  Though their reforms haven't been completely shocking, it's clear that South America is moving to the left:  Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia, among others.  As a result, renegotiations of contracts with multi-national corporations and battles against privatization of natural resources have become commonplace. 

Central America has been slow to follow this trend, though I don't think it'd surprise anyone if it did in the future.

Lula and Chavez are not peas in a pod. Far from it.  Chavez is a relic. 

[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.

Reagan's efforts were mainly focused on Central America, and sure, if we're speaking strictly about Central America, I'd agree, the "Pink Tide" has been largely absent there.  However, in South America, leftist leaning leaders are coming to power one after another across the continent.  Chavez was not the last of a dying breed of political leaders - if anything, he was the opposite.  What he signaled was a shift to the left in South American politics - a shift that is continuing to take place to this day.

Who cares if we orchestrate coups and subvert democracy in Haiti?  Well, the Haitians care.  And every American should, even if they don't.

Scaybeez, leaning left does not make one a Hugo Chavez. The Leftist politics in Argentina and Brazil, for instance, are unlike Venezuela's.

[Vermouth]

Interesting points, Scaybeeez and Mr D. On a subconscious level, I think South America feels closer to Europe and Central America looks to the US.

Lula, Bachelet, etc. ... these are moderate socialists. Chavez is a capricious egomaniac.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Interesting points, Scaybeeez and Mr D. On a subconscious level, I think South America feels closer to Europe and Central America looks to the US.

Lula, Bachelet, etc. ... these are moderate socialists. Chavez is a capricious egomaniac.

Agreed. I also agree with you both that our Latin American polic needs some tuning. FARC is on it's way out so I would support putting the last nails in its coffin but overall we need to focus on reducing poverty.

[Scaybeeez]

No, it tarnished our reputation with Leftist intellectuals. Among Leftist intellectuals "it is well understood that when the United States talks about democracy and peoples' right to self-determination, that it talks out of both sides of its mouth." 

We will accept the Wiki article as fact until we have a good reason not to. Is that fair? It is based on excellent scholarship and the testimony of a senior KGB man. The US gov't didn't spend its funds as well as the Soviets but I will assume that you read the quoted passage. I did not scream, "Allende would never have won without Soviet aid!". I simply pointed out that Allende asked for and received Soviet funding directly. Is it not logical to suggest that Soviet funds bought the Soviet government influence? The fact of the matter is that the US and the Soviets did not stay out of the picture nor were they asked to. What you really need to ask yourself is whether you can truly understand US actions outside of a Cold War context.

Sorry, I must disagree. It benefited both Chile and the USA. In the end, we kept Chile in the US sphere (along with most of Latin America) and Chile did relatively well.

I have to ask since you keep mentioning it. Did the Bolivian government make requests for Soviet support/aid? I only briefly researched this this morning. It appears to me that they eschewed Marxism and developed a quasi fascist economic model? I'm not sure though.

Your assertion that the anti-democratic actions our nation has been involved in have only hurt our reputation with Leftist intellectuals is - and I'm putting this politely - hopelessly naive.  An entire region of the world, for the most part, fully understands that when we give these high falutin' speeches about the benefits of democracy and the right to self-determination, that we're full of shit, and what we REALLY mean is that "democracy is great, so long as you don't stray too far from the path WE have laid out for you".  If you don't think that costs you, go watch some footage of the riots that broke out when Bush would visit the region.  Or take a moment to ponder why reactionary b.s. like radical Islam has found a ready audience in the Middle East.

And, since I haven't checked out that source yet - just got back into town recently, sure, I can accept it for fact for the time being.  Does a Soviet contribution to the Allende campaign, in itself, prove that Chilean policy was being directed by Moscow or steered to fit Moscow's whims?  No.  If you're going to make that argument, you have to back it up with specific examples of Allende bending to Moscow's pressure.  As I said, if anything, Moscow sending a paltry $400,000 to a campaign that we, in total, spent millions upon millions of dollars attempting to change the outcome of proves how low a priority this was for the Soviets...

As far as I'm aware, the Bolivian government did not request such aid from the Soviet Union, however, let's keep in mind that Castro and others didn't either - not initially.  It was only when it became clear that the U.S. wouldn't help reformists (or revolutionaries) in any way whatsoever that they tended to turn to the USSR.  In other words, we created the very situations we feared most, over and over again.  Bolivia is an interesting case, became we actually tried another way.  And it worked.

[Scaybeeez]

Lula and Chavez are not peas in a pod. Far from it.  Chavez is a relic. 

While I'll agree that the nature of the leftist leaning leaders across South America varies, attempting to separate Chavez from the movement, I think, is a  mistake.  He's easily the most militant and outspoken - famous for putting his shoe in his mouth - but the fact that he's been out there doing it and getting away with it has made the entire continent bolder and more willing to shift leftward politically.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I'm sorry you feel that way about the US.  Speaking of naivete, you do realize that the real sources of Arab resentment are their own governments, right? Radical Islam has nothing to do with the US. Nothing. Furthermore, Pinochet had support in Chile. He still does.

Again, Allende asked for and received KGB cash directly. I asked whether or not it is logical to conclude that said cash bought the Soviets influence. You erect a straw man instead of answering that question. Why, Scaybeez? What should concern you is that you had no idea that the Soviets were engaged in Chile (as they were all over the globe). Furthermore, the KGB seemed to think that their expenditures were effective.

For the record, you will never understand these US actions outside of a Cold War context. I suspect that you don't really want to an dmerely have an ideological axe to grind.

Lula and Chavez are not peas in a pod. Far from it.  Chavez is a relic. 

While I'll agree that the nature of the leftist leaning leaders across South America varies, attempting to separate Chavez from the movement, I think, is a  mistake.  He's easily the most militant and outspoken - famous for putting his shoe in his mouth - but the fact that he's been out there doing it and getting away with it has made the entire continent bolder and more willing to shift leftward politically.

There is no "movement". There is a huge capitalist world out there. Get used to it.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

The U.S. had long had its hands in Chilean elections and the 1970 election was no exception.  While the original budget for the anti-Allende propaganda campaign in that election was $135,000 it was increased to $390,000.  Also, through the CIA, ITT sent $350,000 to the Alessandri campaign (the rightest candidate).  In order words, Americans opposed to Allende spent almost TWICE as much money trying to keep Allende out of power as the Soviets did trying to get him into power - and that's if we take Wiki at face value.  That, in itself, neutralizes the argument that the Soviets were somehow instrumental in Allende's victory...

So is it "millions and millions" or $740,000?