US Interventions In Latin America

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
Well if you believe in democracy and freedom of speech and belief, obviously that should include the freedom to be anti-American, is it not so?...

Hitler, the japs, Saddam and Bin Laden were anti-American and all supported the bombing of America, so obviously they had to be dealt with..:)
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Hitler, the japs, Saddam and Bin Laden were anti-American and all supported the bombing of America, so obviously they had to be dealt with..:)
That wasn't who we were talking about. It's possible to argue about the real motivations for the Iraq war, if the Americans were literally just interested in getting rid of dictators, or whether that was just the excuse used after it was discovered that Saddam didn't have WMDs. But we were talking about the cases of countries which weren't militarily belligerent towards the US, who just had somewhat socialistic (not authoritarian communist) economic policies.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
KonkreteMind said- Ask Tidal what that "red cross" represents/represented...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, symbol of the crusades......But perhaps Mr Tidal would not like the idea that people may react to him in such a way, and thus that he is in fact in a certain sense encouraging "islamic" terrorism.
Ah, so you admit muslims are terrorists..:)
As for the cross, it stands for Jesus, St George, the Red Cross charity and everything strong and good and decent.
Below: St. G in action-

"Eat this Jack!"
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
KonkreteMind said- Ask Tidal what that "red cross" represents/represented...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ah, so you admit muslims are terrorists..:)
As for the cross, it stands for Jesus, St George, the Red Cross charity and everything strong and good and decent.
Below: St. G in action-

"Eat this Jack!"
Do I admit that some people who call themselves Muslims are terrorists? Yes, but I wouldn't say they are real Muslims, all of the Muslims who I've known (which is quite a few), certainly weren't terrorists.

Hitler, the japs, Saddam and Bin Laden were anti-American and all supported the bombing of America, so obviously they had to be dealt with..:)
Also, on the Iraq front there was the US desire for Iraqi oil (the days before fracking) and the billions of dollars of "rebuilding" contracts given to American corporations in the aftermath.

But this thread is about US interventions in Latin America.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
...if the Americans were literally just interested in getting rid of dictators, or whether that was just the excuse used after it was discovered that Saddam didn't have WMDs...
In the First Gulf War 1991 the west kicked Saddam out of Kuwait but didn't follow him to Baghdad, they halted the war and left him sitting pretty.
He might still be there if he'd kept his trap shut, but instead he kept promoting Islamic terrorism, eg-
"Does America realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" -Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values." -Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

S
o he was signing his own death warrant, and when it was suspected he had WMD's that was the final straw, so we had to do the Second Gulf War in 2003 to go to Baghdad to shut him up.
And of course no WMD's were found because he'd had plenty of time to bury them out in the desert, or else they were a few flasks of deadly nerve agent capable of wiping out cities which he kept under his bed but the Allies forgot to look there..:)

Below: US troops after capturing Baghdad International Airport in 2003-
God said- "I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath...they come from faraway lands...to destroy the whole country...and destroy the sinners within it" (Bible:Isaiah ch 13)

 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
Wanna jump the pond to this side?

Yes mate, hopefully I'll meet a widow off one of the cruise liners that put in here at Plymouth UK, then marry her after a whirlwind romance and go back to live with her on her ranch, she can rope me, throw me and brand me any time she likes..:)

 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
In the First Gulf War 1991 the west kicked Saddam out of Kuwait but didn't follow him to Baghdad, they halted the war and left him sitting pretty.
He might still be there if he'd kept his trap shut, but instead he kept promoting Islamic terrorism, eg-
"Does America realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" -Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values." -Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

S
o he was signing his own death warrant, and when it was suspected he had WMD's that was the final straw, so we had to do the Second Gulf War in 2003 to go to Baghdad to shut him up.
And of course no WMD's were found because he'd had plenty of time to bury them out in the desert, or else they were a few flasks of deadly nerve agent capable of wiping out cities which he kept under his bed but the Allies forgot to look there..:)

Below: US troops after capturing Baghdad International Airport in 2003-
God said- "I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath...they come from faraway lands...to destroy the whole country...and destroy the sinners within it" (Bible:Isaiah ch 13)

Ugh, quoting the Bible to justify war... You know how many civilians were killed in the Iraq debacle? In any case the actual motivations behind that invasion had little to do with toppling an evil dictator. Of course back in the day the US helped him because they considered him a useful ally against Iran...

But Tidal, is it really too much for you to stick to the subject!? This thread is about US Interventions in Latin America. Not because the whole Iraq thing isn't interesting, but because the cases in Latin America are clear-cut cases of attacking democracy in order to install dictatorship, and not the other way 'round.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
But this thread is about US interventions in Latin America.
Well mate, you said something about how America wants to install rulers for "economic" reasons, but as I know zilch about economics you're going to have to explain it a bit more to us.
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Well mate, you said something about how America wants to install rulers for "economic" reasons, but as I know zilch about economics you're going to have to explain it a bit more to us.
Ok so the USA is the arch-capitalist, not "Keynsian" capitalist like the UK which is a little less "dog eat dog" and has good social welfare programs, free healthcare etc. This specifically American form of capitalism - though now spread everywhere like a virus - believes that the solution to all the world's economic woes is unrestricted free markets, and is known as neo-liberalism. That is to say, no state support for small businesses, low or no minimum wages, no tariffs on trade. Of course such a system favors those who are already rich, if they have enough money to invest they are effectively certain of making good profits. While for the poor it means poverty and starvation, sweatshop jobs with absurdly low wages, land owned by large corporations where those working it have less protections than serfs did in feudal times. Not because the corporations can't afford to treat these people better, but because of the twisted logic of the free market in which the only goal is maximum profit.

Basically all of the governments which the Americans sponsored coups against were interested in socialist economic policies (again, not authoritarian communism). For example Arbenz in Guatemala was taking land from rich Spanish-descended landowners and giving it back to the peasants who had it stolen from them generations before. Some of this land belonged to a US corporation, the United Fruit Company, who obviously weren't happy. Hence the CIA, with approval of the executive branch, organized a coup and replaced Arbenz with the military dictator Armas. In the following decades, the USA continued supporting "counter-insurgency" i.e. death squads, which targeted not only armed resistance to the military government, but also peaceful activists who were becoming inconvenient. There were a number of massacres, and in total the number of people killed is somewhere around 200,000.

All this, for what? For the crime of not opening up to the "free market" and not allowing foreign speculators to become rich off the backs of the poor of Latin America. Every single one of these US interventions had similar motives, they were all intended to create capitalist countries, markets for US corporations and speculative investors. Because the US narrative was that there are only two ways - uncontrolled Capitalism, and authoritarian communism. Socialist governments which fitted into neither category were perhaps problematic because they might also suggest to other countries that another form of economic organization is possible...
 






Last edited:

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
..Every single one of these US interventions had similar motives, they were all intended to create capitalist countries, markets for US corporations and speculative investors..
Is Capitalism a bad thing?
For example most of us live in capitalist Europe and capitalist America and we're all well-fed, well housed, well-clothed and well off with an excellent standard of living.
Perhaps the "poor peasants" in other countries would benefit from capitalism too?.. :)
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Is Capitalism a bad thing?
For example most of us live in capitalist Europe and capitalist America and we're all well-fed, well housed, well-clothed and well off with an excellent standard of living.
Perhaps the "poor peasants" in other countries would benefit from capitalism too?.. :)
Well of course one of the reasons capitalist Europe is rich is because of all the money made by colonialism and empire. The US in some ways is the same story, the corporations making money. In any case even if such a model "works" in Europe and the USA - though there could certainly be models that work better in terms of reducing inequality, if the entrenched financial interests were allow us to try them - that isn't to say it is the best thing or even a good thing for South America. Free markets trend to impoverish the poor and allow for foreign financial speculators to make money at their expense, this is basically what happens everywhere after the neo-liberal free market economy is introduced.

In fact what South American peasants need is land, the land which was confiscated from them by the colonialists, their own place to grow their own food. Well, in fact this would be good everywhere, though Europeans might balk at the idea of returning to a more subsistence-based economy. What they certainly don't need is a foreign power coming to impose it's norms on them using military might and CIA subterfuge, killing large numbers of them in the process, and subjecting them to the rule of despotic dictatorial regimes in order to accomplish its agenda.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
..In fact what South American peasants need is land, the land which was confiscated from them by the colonialists
...What they certainly don't need is a foreign power coming to impose it's norms on them using military might and CIA subterfuge, killing large numbers of them in the process, and subjecting them to the rule of despotic dictatorial regimes in order to accomplish its agenda.
1- The colonialists have gone, so why don't the current regimes give the land back to the people?
2- Has America used its "military might" to actually invade Sth American countries with boots on the ground?
3- How exactly does the CIA "remove" rulers it doesn't like?
4- If the people don't like the new rulers can't they vote them out?
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
1- The colonialists have gone, so why don't the current regimes give the land back to the people?
2- Has America used its "military might" to actually invade Sth American countries with boots on the ground?
3- How exactly does the CIA "remove" rulers it doesn't like?
4- If the people don't like the new rulers can't they vote them out?
1. Yes that's what they did, and that's why the USA intervened, because they can't deal with such socialistic policies.
2. There have been "boots on the ground" in some countries such as Panama. In many other countries there have been "advisers" who help to organize and train the death squads.
3. By supporting reactionary forces, usually elements in the military who are opposed to all policies of redistribution.
4. No, because the new rulers are generally military dictatorships who don't hold elections. The USA has also interfered in a lot of democratic elections to "halt the spread of communism" (i.e. repress all dissenting opinions), including in Panama.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
..There have been "boots on the ground" in some countries such as Panama. In many other countries there have been "advisers" who help to organize and train the death squads..
Every country is different, and so far you've mentioned in this thread Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama etc, so rather than generalising, perhaps we should focus on just one country at a time so that me and other popcorn-munching readers can keep track?
If you could begin with the most outrageous example of alleged US "intervention" we can take it from there.. :)
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Every country is different, and so far you've mentioned in this thread Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama etc, so rather than generalising, perhaps we should focus on just one country at a time so that me and other popcorn-munching readers can keep track?
If you could begin with the most outrageous example of alleged US "intervention" we can take it from there.. :)
Well I'm no great expert, but from my perspective Guatemala seems to be the worse. The democratically elected Arbenz wanted to engage in land redistribution, as most of the land in the country was owned by Spanish-descended landlords who kept the indigenous in a cycle of poverty, including compelling people to work for pittance on plantations (at least until 1944). This sort of reform is exactly what is needed in South America, it allows people to effectively be self-sufficient and redresses the wrongs of colonialism which took the land away from the Indigenous.

Other land, by the way, was owned by an American fruit company called "United Fruit", and some say it was the idea of re-expropriating that which bothered the Americans, though in reality this probably wasn't the whole motivation, seeing as the US generally goes after democratic socialist regimes in any case.

So basically what happened was that the CIA etc claimed that Arbenz was a communist and organized a military coup against him. Following this there was vast repression against Indigenous people, massacres, all kinds of stuff. Some of them organized into various leftist rebel groups to fight against the newly installed dictatorship. This gave the CIA an excuse to train the Guatemalan dictatorship's forces in "counter-insurgency", which in reality meant not only attacking and killing guerillas fighting the dictatorship, but also civilian activists and basically anyone who was "inconvenient" (or their families etc).

The US meddling therefore led to a civil war, and vast numbers of people (200,000 or more) killed. All because some virtuous president wanted to give back to the Indigenous some of the land which was rightfully theirs.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
Well I'm no great expert, but from my perspective Guatemala seems to be the worse..

Whoa, Giammettei only became Guatemalan president this year, so let's give him time to strut his stuff to see what he can do..:)
On paper he sounds basically alright-
WIKI- Giammattei has vowed to bring back the death penalty and pledged to crush violent gangs, fight poverty, to stop migration and end '"disgusting'"corruption.
He is against same-sex marriage and abortion..
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Whoa, Giammettei only became Guatemalan president this year, so let's give him time to strut his stuff to see what he can do..:)
On paper he sounds basically alright-
WIKI- Giammattei has vowed to bring back the death penalty and pledged to crush violent gangs, fight poverty, to stop migration and end '"disgusting'"corruption.
He is against same-sex marriage and abortion..
Oh great, the death penalty, excellent, that's such good news... (sarcasm).

I'm sure that his rule will make up for the decades of civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths the Guatemalan people have experienced due to US meddling.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
..I'm sure that his rule will make up for the decades of civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths the Guatemalan people have experienced due to US meddling.

Ain't that ancient history mate?
WAIT, I feel some good Bible advice coming on!-

God said- "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland"
(Isaiah 43:18 )
 






shankara

Veteran
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
966
Ain't that ancient history mate?
WAIT, I feel some good Bible advice coming on!-

God said- "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past.
See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?
I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland"
(Isaiah 43:18 )
So what you're saying is that we should just forget the crimes of the USA and move on? Even if the USA continues using its power in various destructive ways, and will likely continue to engage in the same kind of thing in the future. Perhaps we should also just move on and forget the crimes of Al Qaeda or ISIS too?

 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,261
So what you're saying is that we should just forget the crimes of the USA and move on? Even if the USA continues using its power in various destructive ways, and will likely continue to engage in the same kind of thing in the future. Perhaps we should also just move on and forget the crimes of Al Qaeda or ISIS too?

America doesn't fly planes into buildings, and Americans don't run wild by bombing and stabbing people in the streets.
Anyway summers here so let's just head for the great outdoors to relax, what could possibly go wrong?..:)
Oh wait-



 






Top