 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Originally posted by Molly Bloom
Because it wasn't good for business.
Same deal with grotesque regimes like Ceaucescu's Romania- western nations cuddled up to the 'friendly' Warsaw Pact dictator for business, and because it was thought he could be a chink in the Pact's armour. Too bad about the Securitate, and those murdered inhabitants of Timisoara, bulldozed villages, etc, etc. |
The latter reason was infinitely more important to Western leaders than the former, IMHO. I think your contention that America supported dictators during the Cold War because it was "good for business" is completely off-base. We supported them because of a justified (although sometimes paranoid) fear of the threat of global communism and the Soviet Union. Anyone who thinks otherwise might want to lay off the Chomsky... |
I think you need to take the reality check- even if it does contain a dose of Chomsky.
What possible reason could the United States have had for supporting the various murderous dictators in Central and South America? Imminent invasion by Soviet forces? Oh, gosh, didn't a revolution take place in Cuba because the United States propped up a corrupt dictatorial regime? And didn't the same thing happen in the Dominican Republic? And didn't...but you get my drift.
Americans' ignorance of not only their own history but the history of Central and South America never ceases to amaze me. I outlined in detail one of the coups that took place in Guatemala- the overthrow of a democratically elected government, with a huge mandate for its president, pledged to land reform. I suspect you don't even know who Jacobo Arbenz Gusman was, but that would not come as a surprise.
How about President Prado? Which country was he president of, and which country helped in his overthrow?
How about the democratically elected Joao Goulart? Want to name his country? Guess who called the illegal military coup 'a move to ensure the continuity of constitutional government'?*
People like you keep spouting on about the 'Pax Americana' but it is as grotesque a misnomer as the 'Pax Britannica' was in the 19th century, and for much the same reasons.
Even before World War II, American forces intervened in the Philippines (hilariously 'liberating' the Filipinos from the Spanish Empire's yoke, then when they discovered Filipinos enjoyed freedom a bit too much, going to war against the Filipinos), Mexico (making it safe for business- Tampico oil business, that is), Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua (do you even know how many times America has invaded Nicaragua, directly, or by proxy? Do you care?) Panama, Haiti, Colombia, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Honduras, and China (making sure Standard Oil's business interests were protected).
Some pax.
Could you just, as a favour, point out how many of those countries were on the point of efflorescing into Soviet style republics? And point out perhaps where you think American business interests were not an important part of the decision to spread a little 'pax'?
* In case you didn't know- and I imagine you don't, it was Secretary of State Rusk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
People like you keep spouting on about the 'Pax Americana' |
Just one incorrect assumption in a post full of them. If you want to continue to be a condescending ass, don't bother. I don't feel the need to prove my historical credentials to a person who assumes to know everything about me and my depth of knowledge from random posts on a message board... |
I voice my suspicions about your knowledge of American interference in Central and South American countries' internal affairs, and the reasons behind them. That you choose to call me a 'condescending ass' does not surprise me, as that's so much easier than facing up to the realities behind American military adventurism and its consequences in the Caribbean, Central and South America and Asia. Follow the money trail.
Chilean copper exports- controlled largely by American owned companies. A military coup, aided and abetted by the U.S.
Brazilian coffee exports, sent through companies owned by General Foods, Maxwell House, and A & P, another military coup, sanctioned by the U.S.
Haitian, Colombian, and Guatemalan coffee exports- see above. Military coups sponsored and aided by the U.S.
Guatemalan fruit exports- well, Guatemala was virtually owned by United Fruit, a U.S. company. More military coups.
Uruguayan and Argentinean meat exports, through companies almost wholly owned by the three largest meat packing companies in Chicago- military coups, cheered along by the United States.
Prior to Castro's revolution, the U.S. controlled 80% of Cuban utilities, 90% of the mines, 90% of the cattle ranches, almost 100 % of the oil refineries, 50% of the public railways, 40% of the sugar industry.
U.S. firms received 40% of the profits on sugar, a cash crop that represented approximately 89% of all Cuban exports.
Venezuela- responsible for 13% of oil imports in the U.S.- an abortive coup against the Chavez government following in the wake of clearly ‘irresponsible’ behaviour by an independent minded president, unaware of his country’s ‘natural’ vassal state and his ‘natural’ peonage.
No sirree, bob, I can't imagine for a moment why people in South America and Central America mistrust the U.S. when its armed forces come calling in the wake of U.S. businesses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Are you going to continue showing off your admittedly deep knowledge of American interventions in Latin America? Or are you going to actually address the point I made in my post? What makes you think that the primary purpose behind American interventions worldwide during the Cold War was business interests and not an often paranoid fear of Marxism and the communist threat? |
Umm, how unfair of me to concentrate on Central and South America and the Caribbean. But surely, isn’t it the proclaimed Polk and Monroe Doctrines that allow the United States to act as though the internal affairs of countries in those regions were somehow in its purview to decide?
Regardless of your assumption that ‘strategic’ matters decide where American armed intervention or political (C.I.A.) intervention goes (and you haven’t shown where this was case, you have simply stated it) the domino theory has long been discredited.
A C.I.A. backed coup against Patrice Lumumba in Zaire was prompted not on a well-founded belief that that country was due to fall to a Communist takeover but on the opinions of one C.I.A. operative who happened to have been befriended by Mobutu when he was in Belgium. C.I.A. director Allen Dulles (yes the man with financial interests in United Fruit and Guatemala) gave the go ahead, and the long slow collapse of Zaire into a kleptocracy and economic ruin unrivalled by any other American client state began. Needless to say, the Rockefellers' financial interests extended to the uranium in Zaire.
Thanks to devaluation ushered in by Mobutu, the Congolese franc was replaced by the zaire. One U.S. dollar could now buy 500 old Congolese francs instead of the 150 prior to devaluation. Any goods bought from the U.S. now cost 333% more, but Zairean minerals now cost the U.S. 70% less. More bucks for your coup.
Between 1965 and 1988, the U.S. Agency for International Development gave $ 860 million in development assistance. This worked so well, that Zaire ended up with a foreign debt of $ 7 billion, and by 1988 was the eighth poorest country in the world. The World Bank estimated a per capita income of $ 160 a year. Between 1973 and 1985, per capita income fell by 3.9 per cent a year. This was equalled only by Nicaragua- which of course had a revolution, earthquake, a terrorist insurgency and a U.S. economic blockade to cope with.
In contrast, Zaire had Joseph Mobutu, the C.I.A. backing Jonas Savimbi’s murderous forces in Angola, and some of the richest mineral reserves in the world, with 70 per cent of the world’s known reserves of cobalt.
Servicing its debts devoured half of the government’s budget, and a quarter of export revenue. Ronald Reagan called the dictator and kleptocrat extraordinaire Mobutu:
“ a voice of sense and good will”.
One could also look at Iran- another C.I.A. backed coup, this time against the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq. He had had the temerity to assume that Iranian oil should be exploited and exported by Iranians and Iranian companies. The Marxist dominated Tudeh Party actually criticised Mossadeq for wanting to replace the old Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with American companies. Iran was never a likely case for falling within the Soviet sphere, but it did have plenty of oil, and was of course bordering on the Soviet Union. After the British and American backed coup, the Amini-Page Consortium Oil Agreement saw 40% of shares going to B.P., 40% to American oil companies, 14% to Royal Dutch, and 6% to the French Oil Company. Iran’s royalties were to be 50% of the net proceeds, the concessionary period to run for 25 years. A wave of political terror also ensued against the Tudeh Party, and informal banning of two other political parties. SAVAK, founded in 1957, grew like a supercharged virus, infecting all walks of life, stifling political dissent by torture, illegal imprisonment, arrest without trial, and the occasional assassination. The way to an Islamic revolution was set.
The Soviet Union was never able to penetrate the Gulf States, and yet the United States saw fit to prop up one autocratic regime after another- perpetuating personal rule by a variety of shahs, sultans, kings and emirs, who frequently did away with any trappings of democracy, and provided a ready market for U.S. military equipment and C.I.A. listening posts.
Businessmen, many of whom were millionaires, dominated Nixon’s cabinet. Standard Oil had a say in determining foreign policy through association with the Rockefellers. Dean Rusk, keen supporter of illegal coups in Brazil, was head of the Rockefeller Foundation when appointed Secretary of State. Christian Herter, a former Secretary of State, had family ties to the Rockefellers. John Foster Dulles (brother of Allen, business interests in Guatemala, United Fruit and illegal coups) was from the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the Rockefeller’s legal advisers.
Thomas S. Gates, former Secretary of State, was President of Morgan Guaranty Trust; James Forrestal, first Secretary of Defence post WWII, was President of Dillon, Read and Co, Wall Street bankers. Charles Wilson and Robert McNamara? General Motors and Ford’s men, respectively.
How many of these august titans of geopolitics were elected democratically by the will of the people?
Assistant Secretary of State Thomas C. Mann (in charge of Latin American affairs) March 18th 1964:
“...[the U.S.] would no longer seek to punish military juntas for overthrowing democratic regimes....rightist and military dictatorships...were acceptable...providing their programme included the protection of $ 9 billion in U.S. investments in Latin America.”
I am sure that all these masters of the universe had only political strategic aims in mind when devising foreign policy and American military intervention abroad. And I’m sure that their financial interests in Guatemala, Mexico, Cuba, Zaire, the Philippines, Iran and elsewhere influenced their decisions not an iota.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yes, it was under Clinton's watch that terrorists built up their infrastructure. It was Clinton who eroded international support by firing off cruise missles after getting a blowjob.
It was Clinton who gave Al Queda confidence by failing to go after the terrorists and using half measures.
Bush may be abrasive but he is the right man for the job. |
This is BS. Claiming that Clinton was somehow responsible for Sept. 11 is as ludicrous as saying Bush Sr. was somehow responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing.
Clinton did more than any preceding president to combat terrorism--because until 1993, terrorism by foreign nationals against U.S. targets wasn't even seriously considered.
Among the many things the Clinton administration did to combat terrorism--which included capturing and bringing to trial terrorists hiding in Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Jordan and Egypt; increased cooperation with Israel and provided hundreds of millions of $$ for Israel to help fight/find terrorists; preventing the attacks against the UN, Holland Tunnel and several other attempts; and asking Congress for tougher terrorism legislation. Now that last note is interesting, because he asked the GOP-controlled congress for some pretty tough measures, and they balked, saying such things weren't necessary. Clinton had to sign the watered-down S 735 bill and state he hoped for further action in the future. So now who was soft on terror?
There were also several reports in the news that, following the embassy bombings, the Clinton Administration had devised sweeping new reforms for the intelligence agencies' fight against terrorism, for airline and airport security, etc. These plans were passed on to the Bush administration, which did nothing about them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2003 05:52
|