• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

American Imperialism

From your excerpt from media control:


"The media, the schools, and popular culture have to be divided."

Now this quote is very telling as to the political ideologies of the author apparently he thinks that media, the schools, and culture should not be divided, do you know what happens when these things are not divided but controlled by one entity whether it be the state or nominally the society as a whole? Well sir you have yourself a totiltarian state son.
 
None of your sources would be accepted as legitimate reference material in a college or scholarly essay, for example you use "thirdworldtraveler," "Noam Chomsky," and Jaheeza Christ newbie you use "prison planet," that's a bad newbie, bad newbie.
Of course not--that's my whole point. The whole system is propagandistic--the press and the school system.

Imperialism 101
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll continue in a day or two when I have some more time.
So what do you think of the video on Cambodia?
John.Pilger.-.Cambodia.-.The.Betrayal - Google Video
 
Of course not--that's my whole point. The whole system is propagandistic--the press and the school system.

We must be operating on different definitions of propaganda, you do realize that everyone of your internet sources does not pass mustard right? The internet is usable for reports and evidence just so long as it is reliable, you links aren't reliable.
 
This is what you wrote at the bottom of post #17.
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries to – as an effort to influence public opinion across the world."

Now my challenge to you is to find where, when, and who from the DOD said they intended to and I quote: "plant stories that were false," if you can not find this I will from here on in ignore every piece of anti-American propaganda that you link to. Good hunting.
As you were writing that you knew that only a person with a security clearance would have access to something like that.
You gave yourself away when you posted that. You know all about American imperialism. You work for the government and you are trying to steer the direction of this debate so Americans who haven't talked to very many foreigners won't take info like this seriously.

Opposing Digits - Health & Awareness Community :: View topic - Rules of Disinformation
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That tactic you used was a classic tactic that propagandists use; an objective truth-seeker would never demand a proof he knows to be impossible to obtain.

The government spends a lot of money on public relations. I keep posting my objective articles and you keep posting your government damage-control articles that were probably written by public relations agencies.
People who have travelled know you are wrong. I guess the viewers who haven't travelled much or talked to many foreigners aren't sure which version reflects reality. What anybody with any doubts should do is find some Latin Americans who speak some English. The older ones are usually pretty informed about American imperialism but they are hesitant to talk about it. If they are approached in a friendly way and they see that you just want to know the truth, they'll explain the whole thing to you.
Read some of these articles and ask them if they reflect reality.
Central America page
South America page
Caribbean watch
 
This is what you wrote at the bottom of post #17.

As you were writing that you knew that only a person with a security clearance would have access to something like that.

So you just take your internet sources at face value and do not question the veracity of their claims? You're a sad case.

I keep posting my objective articles

Are you insane? You have thus far used "thirdworld traverler," "Noam Chomsky," and "Prison Planet," as sources, is that what passes for "objective," in crazyland these days?
 
I keep saying that I live abroad and I talk to people from those countries.

The articles from Third World Traveler are consistent with what those people say. The articles by Noam Chomsky are consistent with what those people say. That article I found from Prison Planet is consistent with what those people say. Prison Planet looks pretty objective. I'm not as familiar with it as I am with the other two but I haven't seen anything I disagree with yet.

An alternative view to the mainstream media, Human rights; Social and economic justice; Foreign policy; Corporations; Media control, Travel in Africa, Asia and Latin America
chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website

Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com: The Earth Is Being Turned Into A Prison Planet

The tactic you're using is classic. I remember that during the Vietnam war the newspapers used to refer to the antiwar movement as the "Lunatic fringe". I never heard the actual words of the protesters. I only saw footage of them protesting. I was just a kid and I was confused about what was happening. I understand it now though. If the news stations had interviewed the protesters unselectively and let their voice be heard, people would have learned the real reasons for the war and they would have stopped supporting the government. The first two sites above have articles that explain what those protesters would have explained if they'd been able to speak on national TV.
Here are some samples.
The Lessons of the Vietnam War

vietnam - Google Search

Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Enter "Vietnam" in this search engine to see more.
ht://Dig WWW Search

Americans get an upside-down analysis of the reasons for the conflicts it gets into. The government can't tell them that they're the "Bad guys". It has to discredit the groups trying to explain the truth to the people.
 
I keep saying that I live abroad and I talk to people from those countries.

Good for you more unverifiable information.

The articles from Third World Traveler are consistent with what those people say.

I'm sure they are but that doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but propaganda and easily disproven propaganda at that.

The articles by Noam Chomsky are consistent with what those people say.

Well then they don't know what they're talking about because Chomsky is FOS.

That article I found from Prison Planet is consistent with what those people say.

That what? That the U.S. is controlled by devil worshippers? That's what Prison Planet? Do you really believe that? They are the furthest thing from objective that you can find and would not be recognized as legitimate reference material for scholarly work here or abroad and neither would any of your other unreferenced B.S..

Prison Planet looks pretty objective.

OMFG Stop the presses that's going on as my new signature.
 
Last edited:
I keep saying that I live abroad and I talk to people from those countries.
Good for you more unverifiable information.
I've talked to scores of people who don't know each other. They all tell me the same thing about those countries. Doesn't that make you wonder whether what this site says reflects reality?
An alternative view to the mainstream media, Human rights; Social and economic justice; Foreign policy; Corporations; Media control, Travel in Africa, Asia and Latin America

The articles from Third World Traveler are consistent with what those people say.

I'm sure they are but that doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but propaganda and easily disproven propaganda at that.
Your way of disproving things is to post the official US version of the situation and call it disproved.
Let's hear how you disprove what Chomsky says about the Dominican Republic in this article.
The Empire and Ourselves, by Noam Chomsky

Your mind is already made up. An objective truth-seeker would wonder if the official version of things were true or not. You ingnore evidence that doesn't go in the direction you want. Truth-seekers just want to know what's really happening and they follow the evidence objectively and accept the truth even if it wasn't what they expected.

Well then they don't know what they're talking about because Chomsky is FOS.
I don't know what FOS stands for so I googled it.
FOS - What does FOS stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.
I guess you mean the last one.
Chomsky goes to Central America and talks to intellectuals and finds out first-hand what is happening in those countries and then writes about it.
chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website

That article I found from Prison Planet is consistent with what those people say.

That what? That the U.S. is controlled by devil worshippers? That's what Prison Planet? Do you really believe that? They are the furthest thing from objective that you can find and would not be recognized as legitimate reference material for scholarly work here or abroad and neither would any of your other unreferenced B.S..
I was referring to this article.
Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation
It says nothing about Devil Worshipers. I haven't read very much from Prison Planet yet. Please post what you saw about Devil Worshipers. I think the people who run this country are greedy imperialists but I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved in something strange like that.
 
I've talked to scores of people who don't know each other. They all tell me the same thing about those countries. Doesn't that make you wonder whether what this site says reflects reality?
An alternative view to the mainstream media, Human rights; Social and economic justice; Foreign policy; Corporations; Media control, Travel in Africa, Asia and Latin America


Your way of disproving things is to post the official US version of the situation and call it disproved.
Let's hear how you disprove what Chomsky says about the Dominican Republic in this article.
The Empire and Ourselves, by Noam Chomsky

Your mind is already made up. An objective truth-seeker would wonder if the official version of things were true or not. You ingnore evidence that doesn't go in the direction you want. Truth-seekers just want to know what's really happening and they follow the evidence objectively and accept the truth even if it wasn't what they expected.


I don't know what FOS stands for so I googled it.
FOS - What does FOS stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.
I guess you mean the last one.
Chomsky goes to Central America and talks to intellectuals and finds out first-hand what is happening in those countries and then writes about it.
chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website


I was referring to this article.
Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation
It says nothing about Devil Worshipers. I haven't read very much from Prison Planet yet. Please post what you saw about Devil Worshipers. I think the people who run this country are greedy imperialists but I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved in something strange like that.


You do realize that your entire last post was spent defending your bullshit sources right? Let's see so far you have third world traveler, Noam Chomsky, prison planet, and people who you have talked to that agree with them you have not provided one piece of falsifiable information, you are a conspiracist IE a practioner of what Richard Hofstadter referred to as "The paranoid style of politics." Do you have an extra copy of the Daily Worker on hand too? I mean if I wanted propaganda I'd go to the source.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that your entire last post was spent defending your bullshit sources right?
I asked you to disprove something. You said everything I posted was easily disproved. I want to see how you go about disproving this.

The Empire and Ourselves, by Noam Chomsky
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact the Dominican Republic serves as a kind of illuminating case study to answer what I think is the crucial question: what Kennedy and the other planners mean when they say we have to avoid the danger of a Castro. The first Marine landing on the Dominican Republic was in the year 1800, so there's a long history.

I won't run through the nineteenth century but the most serious interventions began under Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson, as you all learn in school, was the great apostle of self-determination and he celebrated this doctrine, among other things, by invading the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In the Dominican Republic his warriors fought for six years to suppress the "damn Dagoes" as Theodore Roosevelt had described them. This was a vicious counterinsurgency campaign that has essentially disappeared from American history. The first major scholarly study of it just appeared in 1984, by Bruce Calder, University of Texas Press. Calder, in keeping with the conventions of American scholarship, regards this as a kind of an odd exception, an inexplicable departure from our path of righteousness. But he does describe what happened and I'll give you some of his description.

He says that Wilson intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1916 to block constitutional government and insure complete U.S. economic and military control. The behavior of the Marines, he says, was brutish by Dominican standards. They murdered, destroyed villages, they tortured, they created concentration camps which served as a slave labor supply for the sugar corporations. The end result was that the sugar companies, overwhelmingly American, owned about a quarter of the agricultural land while the population sank into misery and starvation.

Now, of course, all of this was done in self-defense. Everything we always do is in self-defense. But who were we defending ourselves against? Well it started in 1916 so we couldn't be defending ourselves against the Bolsheviks. So it turned out that we were defending ourselves against the Huns. There didn't happen to be any Huns there but that didn't matter.

When the Marines left, they placed the country in the hands of a National Guard trained by the United States. Trujillo quickly emerged and he became the dictator, one of the most rapacious and brutal of the many dictators that we've established under similar conditions throughout the region of our control.

Well, everything was okay for thirty or thirty-five years. Trujillo was praised in the United States as a forward-looking leader; for example, after he massacred fifteen or twenty thousand Haitians in one month in 1937 and carried out other similar actions against his own population. However, by the late 1950s this love affair was beginning to turn sour. Trujillo owned at that time about 70 to 80% of the economy, which means that the proper owners, mainly American-based corporations, were being pushed out. The CIA was authorized, or instructed, to carry out an assassination plot. Whether they did it or not, somebody did. He was assassinated.

At that point there was a democratic election, in 1962. Juan Bosch was elected. Juan Bosch was a Kennedy liberal. His policies were essentially those professed by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy immediately committed himself to undermine and destroy him. U.S. aid was stopped. The United States blocked the removal of Trujilloist officers. The U.S. military maintained their close contact with them. It was quite obvious that there would be a military coup given this U.S, insistence on maintaining the Trujilloist military system.

Bosch fought corruption, he defended civil liberties, he stopped police repression. He began programs to educate peasants and workers for true democratic participation. He actually succeeded under awful conditions in initiating an economic revival. It was plain that we had to "let him go," as Ambassador Martin said, and so we did. There was a military coup, quickly recognized by the United States. Well, at that point an economic decline set in, corruption increased, the repression increased--and all of this was fine. No objections.

That incident helps us get some understanding of the meaning of the term "Castro." Juan Bosch was one of those Castros who we have to oppose in favor of a Trujillo. Juan Bosch was not a Communist, he was a liberal democrat. He tried to institute a capitalist democracy, and that was intolerable to Big Brother.

Well, that's not the end of the story. In 1965 there was a constitutionalist military coup, attempting to return the Dominican Republic to constitutionalist rule to reinstate the legally elected president, Juan Bosch. Twenty-three thousand Marines were sent, who fought against the Constitutionalist forces. And then they stood by while the Dominican military, whom they had rescued, carried out a substantial slaughter of civilians. They stood by because the official line was that it would violate U.S. neutrality for them to intervene at that point. So, the threat of democracy was averted and the traditional order was restored.

The result this time was more serious. It was death squads, torture, mass starvation, the flight of about 20% of the population to the United States, and outstanding opportunities for U.S. investors who bought up pretty much the rest of the country--Gulf and Western being one, among others.
 
I asked you to disprove something. You said everything I posted was easily disproved. I want to see how you go about disproving this.

You asked me to disprove un-falsifiable hear say unsourced uncorrobarated non-objective horseshit.

The Empire and Ourselves, by Noam Chomsky
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact the Dominican Republic serves as a kind of illuminating case study to answer what I think is the crucial question: what Kennedy and the other planners mean when they say we have to avoid the danger of a Castro. The first Marine landing on the Dominican Republic was in the year 1800, so there's a long history.

I won't run through the nineteenth century but the most serious interventions began under Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson, as you all learn in school, was the great apostle of self-determination and he celebrated this doctrine, among other things, by invading the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In the Dominican Republic his warriors fought for six years to suppress the "damn Dagoes" as Theodore Roosevelt had described them. This was a vicious counterinsurgency campaign that has essentially disappeared from American history. The first major scholarly study of it just appeared in 1984, by Bruce Calder, University of Texas Press. Calder, in keeping with the conventions of American scholarship, regards this as a kind of an odd exception, an inexplicable departure from our path of righteousness. But he does describe what happened and I'll give you some of his description.

He says that Wilson intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1916 to block constitutional government and insure complete U.S. economic and military control. The behavior of the Marines, he says, was brutish by Dominican standards. They murdered, destroyed villages, they tortured, they created concentration camps which served as a slave labor supply for the sugar corporations. The end result was that the sugar companies, overwhelmingly American, owned about a quarter of the agricultural land while the population sank into misery and starvation.

Now, of course, all of this was done in self-defense. Everything we always do is in self-defense. But who were we defending ourselves against? Well it started in 1916 so we couldn't be defending ourselves against the Bolsheviks. So it turned out that we were defending ourselves against the Huns. There didn't happen to be any Huns there but that didn't matter.

When the Marines left, they placed the country in the hands of a National Guard trained by the United States. Trujillo quickly emerged and he became the dictator, one of the most rapacious and brutal of the many dictators that we've established under similar conditions throughout the region of our control.

Well, everything was okay for thirty or thirty-five years. Trujillo was praised in the United States as a forward-looking leader; for example, after he massacred fifteen or twenty thousand Haitians in one month in 1937 and carried out other similar actions against his own population. However, by the late 1950s this love affair was beginning to turn sour. Trujillo owned at that time about 70 to 80% of the economy, which means that the proper owners, mainly American-based corporations, were being pushed out. The CIA was authorized, or instructed, to carry out an assassination plot. Whether they did it or not, somebody did. He was assassinated.

So where is your evidence that the U.S. supported the assasination in any way, shape, or form?

At that point there was a democratic election, in 1962. Juan Bosch was elected. Juan Bosch was a Kennedy liberal. His policies were essentially those professed by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy immediately committed himself to undermine and destroy him. U.S. aid was stopped. The United States blocked the removal of Trujilloist officers.

Wait wait wait, so first we killed Trujillo and then we supposedly supported his remnants against Bosch? That makes no damn sense.

The U.S. military maintained their close contact with them. It was quite obvious that there would be a military coup given this U.S, insistence on maintaining the Trujilloist military system.



Bosch fought corruption, he defended civil liberties, he stopped police repression. He began programs to educate peasants and workers for true democratic participation. He actually succeeded under awful conditions in initiating an economic revival. It was plain that we had to "let him go," as Ambassador Martin said, and so we did. There was a military coup, quickly recognized by the United States. Well, at that point an economic decline set in, corruption increased, the repression increased--and all of this was fine. No objections.

That incident helps us get some understanding of the meaning of the term "Castro." Juan Bosch was one of those Castros who we have to oppose in favor of a Trujillo. Juan Bosch was not a Communist, he was a liberal democrat. He tried to institute a capitalist democracy, and that was intolerable to Big Brother.

Well, that's not the end of the story. In 1965 there was a constitutionalist military coup, attempting to return the Dominican Republic to constitutionalist rule to reinstate the legally elected president, Juan Bosch. Twenty-three thousand Marines were sent, who fought against the Constitutionalist forces. And then they stood by while the Dominican military, whom they had rescued, carried out a substantial slaughter of civilians. They stood by because the official line was that it would violate U.S. neutrality for them to intervene at that point. So, the threat of democracy was averted and the traditional order was restored.

The result this time was more serious. It was death squads, torture, mass starvation, the flight of about 20% of the population to the United States, and outstanding opportunities for U.S. investors who bought up pretty much the rest of the country--Gulf and Western being one, among others.

More ****ing Chomsky what a load of crap, A) there was no consitutionalist military coup attempt it was a coup attempt to overturn the government of the Constitution which called themselves constitutionalists, it's like the Communist Regime of China calling themselves a Republic it's called newspeak, B) In contrary to Chomsky's bullshit assertions the U.S. military preserved their fragile consitution in 1965 and today as a result they have free and fair elections starting in 1996.
 
Last edited:
You said this stuff was easily disproved. You haven't come close to disproving it.

Here's some more stuff by Chomsky.
Washington Connection & Fascism Intro Herman

It's an excerpt from his and Herman's book.
Amazon.com: Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Political Economy of Human Rights): Books: Noam Chomsky,Edward S. Herman


Find some Latin Americans and ask them if what's in this book reflects reality.

I'm done debating communist and fascist propaganda from Third World Traveler, Chomsky, and Prison Planet, there's nothing worse than revisionist historians and propagandists except maybe those that believe them. And for the record I'm part Cuban, fuc/k Castro viva Alpha 66 death to Castro, death to Chavez, death to Morales.
 
I asked you to disprove something. You said everything I posted was easily disproved. I want to see how you go about disproving this.

The Empire and Ourselves, by Noam Chomsky
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact the Dominican Republic serves as a kind of illuminating case study to answer what I think is the crucial question: what Kennedy and the other planners mean when they say we have to avoid the danger of a Castro. The first Marine landing on the Dominican Republic was in the year 1800, so there's a long history.

I won't run through the nineteenth century but the most serious interventions began under Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson, as you all learn in school, was the great apostle of self-determination and he celebrated this doctrine, among other things, by invading the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In the Dominican Republic his warriors fought for six years to suppress the "damn Dagoes" as Theodore Roosevelt had described them. This was a vicious counterinsurgency campaign that has essentially disappeared from American history. The first major scholarly study of it just appeared in 1984, by Bruce Calder, University of Texas Press. Calder, in keeping with the conventions of American scholarship, regards this as a kind of an odd exception, an inexplicable departure from our path of righteousness. But he does describe what happened and I'll give you some of his description.

He says that Wilson intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1916 to block constitutional government and insure complete U.S. economic and military control. The behavior of the Marines, he says, was brutish by Dominican standards. They murdered, destroyed villages, they tortured, they created concentration camps which served as a slave labor supply for the sugar corporations. The end result was that the sugar companies, overwhelmingly American, owned about a quarter of the agricultural land while the population sank into misery and starvation.

Now, of course, all of this was done in self-defense. Everything we always do is in self-defense. But who were we defending ourselves against? Well it started in 1916 so we couldn't be defending ourselves against the Bolsheviks. So it turned out that we were defending ourselves against the Huns. There didn't happen to be any Huns there but that didn't matter.

When the Marines left, they placed the country in the hands of a National Guard trained by the United States. Trujillo quickly emerged and he became the dictator, one of the most rapacious and brutal of the many dictators that we've established under similar conditions throughout the region of our control.

Well, everything was okay for thirty or thirty-five years. Trujillo was praised in the United States as a forward-looking leader; for example, after he massacred fifteen or twenty thousand Haitians in one month in 1937 and carried out other similar actions against his own population. However, by the late 1950s this love affair was beginning to turn sour. Trujillo owned at that time about 70 to 80% of the economy, which means that the proper owners, mainly American-based corporations, were being pushed out. The CIA was authorized, or instructed, to carry out an assassination plot. Whether they did it or not, somebody did. He was assassinated.

At that point there was a democratic election, in 1962. Juan Bosch was elected. Juan Bosch was a Kennedy liberal. His policies were essentially those professed by John F. Kennedy. Kennedy immediately committed himself to undermine and destroy him. U.S. aid was stopped. The United States blocked the removal of Trujilloist officers. The U.S. military maintained their close contact with them. It was quite obvious that there would be a military coup given this U.S, insistence on maintaining the Trujilloist military system.

Bosch fought corruption, he defended civil liberties, he stopped police repression. He began programs to educate peasants and workers for true democratic participation. He actually succeeded under awful conditions in initiating an economic revival. It was plain that we had to "let him go," as Ambassador Martin said, and so we did. There was a military coup, quickly recognized by the United States. Well, at that point an economic decline set in, corruption increased, the repression increased--and all of this was fine. No objections.

That incident helps us get some understanding of the meaning of the term "Castro." Juan Bosch was one of those Castros who we have to oppose in favor of a Trujillo. Juan Bosch was not a Communist, he was a liberal democrat. He tried to institute a capitalist democracy, and that was intolerable to Big Brother.

Well, that's not the end of the story. In 1965 there was a constitutionalist military coup, attempting to return the Dominican Republic to constitutionalist rule to reinstate the legally elected president, Juan Bosch. Twenty-three thousand Marines were sent, who fought against the Constitutionalist forces. And then they stood by while the Dominican military, whom they had rescued, carried out a substantial slaughter of civilians. They stood by because the official line was that it would violate U.S. neutrality for them to intervene at that point. So, the threat of democracy was averted and the traditional order was restored.

The result this time was more serious. It was death squads, torture, mass starvation, the flight of about 20% of the population to the United States, and outstanding opportunities for U.S. investors who bought up pretty much the rest of the country--Gulf and Western being one, among others.

CASE CLOSED CHOMSKY:

Dominican Republic (2006)
Political Rights: 2
Civil Liberties: 2
Status: Free

In 2005, the Dominican economy began to recover from the severe economic crisis that had paralyzed the previous government and had laid the foundation for former president Leonel Fernandez Reyna to handily oust his predecessor in 2004. Public support for Fernandez has slipped as a result of the government's apparent inability to effectively address concerns about corruption. The Dominican government was criticized by human rights groups for implementing mass deportations of Haitian migrants in response to a swelling influx of illegal immigration.

After achieving independence from Spain in 1821 and from Haiti in 1844, the Dominican Republic endured recurrent domestic conflict. The assassination of General Rafael Trujillo in 1961 ended 30 years of dictatorship, but a 1963 military coup led to civil war and U.S. intervention. In 1966, under a new constitution, civilian rule was restored with the election of the conservative Joaquin Balaguer.

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfmpage=22&year=2006&country=6953

Joaquín Amparo Balaguer Ricardo (September 1, 1906July 14, 2002) was the President of the Dominican Republic from 1960 to 1962, from 1966 to 1978, and again from 1986 to 1996. An unlikely strongman, he had been a protégé of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, and, though frequently accused of election fraud and of intimidating would-be opponents, is also considered one of the craftiest politicians in the history of the country and a foundation for the modern Dominican state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquín_Balaguer

And this guy apparently held free and fair elections which is proven by the fact that he lost elections even ones against the Dominican Revolutionary Party in 1978.
 
Last edited:
HTML:
And this guy apparently held free and fair elections which is proven by the fact that he lost elections even ones against the Dominican Revolutionary Party in 1978.
This doesn't disprove what Chomsky said. Chomsky was talking about the sixties. Talk to any older person from the Dominican Republic and you'll get the same story Chomsky told. You are not a truth-seeker. You are trying to obfuscate the truth.
 
HTML:
And this guy apparently held free and fair elections which is proven by the fact that he lost elections even ones against the Dominican Revolutionary Party in 1978.
This doesn't disprove what Chomsky said. Chomsky was talking about the sixties. Talk to any older person from the Dominican Republic and you'll get the same story Chomsky told. You are not a truth-seeker. You are trying to obfuscate the truth.

whatever dude I showed you how the D.R. is a constitutional and free country today that allowed for free and fair elections which started at the very latest in 1978 this would not have been the case if not for U.S. interjection in their continious civil war and strife.
 
whatever dude I showed you how the D.R. is a constitutional and free country today that allowed for free and fair elections which started at the very latest in 1978 this would not have been the case if not for U.S. interjection in their continious civil war and strife.

I don't know the latest news about the Dominican Republic. Sometimes things take a turn for the better. You are wrong about the US intervention making things better. Every time the US intervenes, it's to install a puppet who will represent US companies.

Exporting the Facade excerpted from the book The Democratic Facade

Enter "Dominican Republic" in this search engine.
ht://Dig WWW Search
 
HTML:
Well now you do they are a totally free nation that allowed for free and fair elections as far back as 1978.
If that's true, it's in spite of the US--not because of it.

And wrong again we backed the Democratic government which resides in the D.R. today.


It's clearly non-objective anti-capitalist, anti-american pro-Marxist propaganda.
 
HTML:
And wrong again we backed the Democratic government which resides in the D.R. today.
"Democratic government" is a euphamism the US uses for puppet government that represent American companies instead of the people of their countries.

HTML:
I'd like to hear your analysis of this article.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy_America/Exporting_Facade_TDF.html 
It's clearly non-objective anti-capitalist, anti-american pro-Marxist propaganda.

If anyone is wondering which version of things reflects reality, go spend six months south of the border and talk to people. People who do that usually come back to the states knowing how the US exploits Latin America.
Of course that's not easy for everybody to do. If you can't do that, talk to some Latin Americans.
If you know somebody from any third world country in Asia, Africa, Arabia, or Latin America, read what this site says about the country.
An alternative view to the mainstream media, Human rights; Social and economic justice; Foreign policy; Corporations; Media control, Travel in Africa, Asia and Latin America

Then, ask that person whether it reflects reality.
 
HTML:
And wrong again we backed the Democratic government which resides in the D.R. today.
"Democratic government" is a euphamism the US uses for puppet government that represent American companies instead of the people of their countries.

lol yes Democratic constitutional governments with free and fair elections are just American puppet states. :roll:

If anyone is wondering which version of things reflects reality, go spend six months south of the border and talk to people.

Why would they know anymore than you or I? And if their world view is anything like yours then I wouldn't listen to their delusional banter either.
 
The Latin Americans I've spoken to know that if they get involved in movements that are trying to elect a president that represents them instead of American companies, they are risking torture and death.

Here is a book every American should read.

Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda. Authored by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was thus well known to American authorities in 1965 that we were fighting a nationalist mass movement in favor of a corrupt oligarchy that lacked popular backing. The Vietnam war was fought to return this nationalist mass movement to that measure of passivity and defeatism" identified by Pool as necessary for "stability" in the Third World (see note 12). It must be brought under comprador military control such as we have imposed or supported in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Bolivia, Greece, Thailand, etc. The power to rationalize self-interest is great, however, and some American leaders may have been able to keep their minds from being cluttered with inconvenient facts. In so doing, they preserved the belief that because we were the good guys our purposes must be benign and democratic and must have some positive relationship to the interests of the South Vietnamese people. Even the evidence that we were directing a large part of our military effort to assaulting and uprooting the rural population of the South, already overwhelming before the end of 1965, was easily assimilated into the Orwellian doctrine of "defense against aggression."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another.

Washington Connection & Fascism Intro Herman
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever the attitudes of the U.S. leadership toward freedom at home ... systematic policies towards Third World countries ... make it evident that the alleged commitment to democracy and human rights is mere rhetoric, directly contrary to actual policy. The operative principle has been and remains economic freedom-meaning freedom for U.S. business to invest, sell, and repatriate profits-and its two basic requisites, a favorable investment climate and a specific form of stability. Since these primary values are disturbed by unruly students, democratic processes, peasant organizations, a free press, and free labor unions, "economic freedom" has often required political servitude. Respect for the rights of the individual, also alleged to be one of the cardinal values of the West, has had little place in the operating procedures applied to the Third World. Since a favorable investment climate and stability quite often require repression, the United States has supplied the tools and training for interrogation and torture and is thoroughly implicated in the vast expansion of torture during the Past decade. When Dan Mitrione came to Uruguay in a police advisory function, the police were torturing with an obsolete electric needle:
Mitrione arranged for the police to get newer electric needles of varying thickness. Some needles were so thin they could be slipped between the teeth. Benitez [a Uruguayan police official] understood that this equipment came to Montevideo inside the U.S. embassy's diplomatic pouch.
Within the United States itself, the intelligence services were "running torture camps," as were their Brazilian associates, who "set up a camp modeled after that of the boinas verdes, the Green Berets." And there is evidence that U.S. advisors took an active part in torture, not contenting themselves with supplying training and material means. During the Vietnam War, the United States. employed on a massive scale improved napalm, phosphorus and fragmentation bombs, and a wide range of other "anti-personnel" weapons that had a devastating effect on civilians. The steady development of weaponry and methods of "interrogation" that inflict enormous pain on the human body and spirit, and the expansion of use of this technology in U.S.-sponsored counterinsurgency warfare and "stabilization" throughout the U.S. sphere of influence, is further evidence that the "sacredness of the individual" is hardly a primary value in the West, at least in its application beyond an elite in-group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML:
Why would they know anymore than you or I? And if their world view is anything like yours then I wouldn't listen to their delusional banter either.

This is well-understood down there because the people there can see what's happening. The only place where it isn't understood is in the US as the press distorts reality because the citizens would never support what the government does if they understood it.
 
This is on the list of videos in post #1 of this thread.
Video - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
In case anybody hasn't seen it yet, it explains things pretty well.

This is the same guy talking. In part two he talks specifically about how the US exploits Latin America.

Part 1
John Perkins, Part 1 at the VFP National Convention - Google Video
Part 2
John Perkins, Part 2 at the VFP National Convention - Google Video
Part 3
John Perkins, Part 3 at the VFP National Convention - Google Video

In case you can't use "Google Video", here's the same thing on "YouTube".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM

YouTube - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Part 2/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l22O33KyWa4&mode=related&search=
 
Back
Top Bottom