We only attack brutal dictatorships

[MSgt]

Then what about the dictatorships i mentioned that america put into place?

What about them? Those are the ones that would lend you credibility to an argument. Not desperatley mentioning other examples that are meant to paint a worse picture than it is.

But like I always say, you have to look at the entire situations. Decisions are made in the present and the repercussions are felt later. In those days, we were engaged in a thing called the "Cold War." The Soviet block had tried for years to supply South American Governments with weapons, funds, and political support. The CIA did what was necessary to prevent a communist foothold on our part of the world. The Cuban Missile crisis was a result of Soviet influence from one communist country to another. Why would we allow such a thing to possibly occur in an other country in our region?

 

[Red_Dave]

What about them? Those are the ones that would lend you credibility to an argument. Not desperatley mentioning other examples that are meant to paint a worse picture than it is.

But like I always say, you have to look at the entire situations. Decisions are made in the present and the repercussions are felt later. In those days, we were engaged in a thing called the "Cold War." The Soviet block had tried for years to supply South American Governments with weapons, funds, and political support. The CIA did what was necessary to prevent a communist foothold on our part of the world. The Cuban Missile crisis was a result of Soviet influence from one communist country to another. Why would we allow such a thing to possibly occur in an other country in our region?

The cold war argument only really applys to pinochet. This is because the party headed by jacob arbenz in guatemala was really no further to the left then Clement Attle in the uk and was certainly not lenninist or allied with moscow. Also there was no way of knowing that cuba was going to turn lenninst so that cant be used as a reson for allowing batista to stay on a third term. So the real reason for intervention in both these countrys was keeping control of there resources in the hands of multinationals rather than the people of these countrys.

As for chile Salvador Allende ran for president on a democratic marxist platform but became very pro-casto. Salvador Allende wasnt going to attack america so i dont think his marxism justifies overiding the democratic descisons of the chilean people and putting a mass murderour like pinochet in the place of a democratically elected president. Therefore its clear that the real reason for this tyranny was control of latin american resources

 

[MSgt]

The cold war argument only really applys to pinochet. This is because the party headed by jacob arbenz in guatemala was really no further to the left then Clement Attle in the uk and was certainly not lenninist or allied with moscow. Also there was no way of knowing that cuba was going to turn lenninst so that cant be used as a reson for allowing batista to stay on a third term. So the real reason for intervention in both these countrys was keeping control of there resources in the hands of multinationals rather than the people of these countrys.

As for chile Salvador Allende ran for president on a democratic marxist platform but became very pro-casto. Salvador Allende wasnt going to attack america so i dont think his marxism justifies overiding the democratic descisons of the chilean people and putting a mass murderour like pinochet in the place of a democratically elected president. Therefore its clear that the real reason for this tyranny was control of latin american resources

I'm sure it was more complicated than that. Pro Castro means pro communist. Like I've said before..."It's not always about right and wrong. It's frequently about neccessity."

 

[Red_Dave]

I'm sure it was more complicated than that. Pro Castro means pro communist. Like I've said before..."It's not always about right and wrong. It's frequently about neccessity."

Well my point is that it wast about neccesity if these governments had no links to moscow and therefore the reasons given for these coups where bogous

 

[Herophant]

Who gave the US the right to destroy democraticly elected goverments based on the people choice in financial matters and therefore allies in the cold war?

 

[MSgt]

Who gave the US the right to destroy democraticly elected goverments based on the people choice in financial matters and therefore allies in the cold war?

The US. It's all about securities, interests, and pro-active protection. "Right and wrong" is something an individual has the luxury of preaching from behind. A Government, who has millions and millions to look after, has no such luxury. American Government learned from the mistakes of Europe. Europe has proven over and over that they are willing to let a problem take root, fester, and become a threat. Then they have proven over and over that they will do everything possible to appease the threat away until another nation has to come across the ocean and handle their business for them. We do not have this problem on our side of the world, because we do not let a problem take root.

 

[Red_Dave]

The US. It's all about securities, interests, and pro-active protection. "Right and wrong" is something an individual has the luxury of preaching from behind. A Government, who has millions and millions to look after, has no such luxury. American Government learned from the mistakes of Europe. Europe has proven over and over that they are willing to let a problem take root, fester, and become a threat. Then they have proven over and over that they will do everything possible to appease the threat away until another nation has to come across the ocean and handle their business for them. We do not have this problem on our side of the world, because we do not let a problem take root.

Are you seriously surgesting comparatively small third world countrys like gutamala possed a serious threat to america. Guetamala was neither comunist nor did it have will or means to invade america. The only risk it possed was to american profit margins. Same goes with Chile and Cuba.

If america was really under threat someone would have invaded by now

 

[The Real McCoy]

Are you seriously surgesting comparatively small third world countrys like gutamala possed a serious threat to america. Guetamala was neither comunist nor did it have will or means to invade america. The only risk it possed was to american profit margins. Same goes with Chile and Cuba.

If america was really under threat someone would have invaded by now

The Soviets had missles in Cuba and I see no reason to think they wouldn't have supplied other pro-Soviet Latin American countries with arms.

 

[Red_Dave]

The Soviets had missles in Cuba and I see no reason to think they wouldn't have supplied other pro-Soviet Latin American countries with arms.

Well the US suporrted batista long before castro, let alone any soviet arms and as i keep saying jacob arbenz was not a comunist he just nationalised a bit of land. Your argument almost works with regards to Salvador Allende maybe but it doesnt seam likely that he would attack a much bigger country on the other side of the plannet.

 

[MSgt]

Are you seriously surgesting comparatively small third world countrys like gutamala possed a serious threat to america. Guetamala was neither comunist nor did it have will or means to invade america. The only risk it possed was to american profit margins. Same goes with Chile and Cuba.

If america was really under threat someone would have invaded by now

The threat would not have been these insignificant countries. The threat would have been Soviet and Communist influence. The Cuban Missile Crisis was very much fresh in people's minds.

That's the point. There is no threat, because we haven't allowed there to be one.

 

[Red_Dave]

The threat would not have been these insignificant countries. The threat would have been Soviet and Communist influence. The Cuban Missile Crisis was very much fresh in people's minds.

That's the point. There is no threat, because we haven't allowed there to be one.

So if these governments where not a threat why overthrow them and replace them with mass murdering dictators?

 

[Red_Dave]

So if these governments where not a threat why overthrow them and replace them with mass murdering dictators?

and what du mean the cuban misile crisis was still on peoples mind? the cuban misle crisis was well after batista.

 

[MSgt]

and what du mean the cuban misile crisis was still on peoples mind? the cuban misle crisis was well after batista.

Our activities in SA didn't all occur pre-"Cuban Missile Crisis." Try to keep up.

 

[MSgt]

So if these governments where not a threat why overthrow them and replace them with mass murdering dictators?

Again..try to keep up. "The threat would not have been these insignificant countries. The threat would have been Soviet and Communist influence." I get the feeling I said this before and quite recently.

Allow me to break this down for you....

1. Existing non-threatening government in insignificant country.

2. Existing government begins talks with communist countries which involve financial, weapons, and trade talks.

3. Existing government is seen as a future Soviet sattelite threat.

4. Existing government is removed and replaced by an individual who turns out to be crap to his people, but poses no threat to American interests of security. ie....he will not work with Soviets.

5. Years later, Europeans from the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing throw these incidents in American faces in a sense that it exonerates their long and barbarous history.


Got it?

 

[Red_Dave]

Again..try to keep up. "The threat would not have been these insignificant countries. The threat would have been Soviet and Communist influence." I get the feeling I said this before and quite recently.

Allow me to break this down for you....

1. Existing non-threatening government in insignificant country.

2. Existing government begins talks with communist countries which involve financial, weapons, and trade talks.

3. Existing government is seen as a future Soviet sattelite threat.

4. Existing government is removed and replaced by an individual who turns out to be crap to his people, but poses no threat to American interests of security. ie....he will not work with Soviets.

5. Years later, Europeans from the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing throw these incidents in American faces in a sense that it exonerates their long and barbarous history.


Got it?

Well the only country where there was a possibilty of soviet influence was cuba, you,ve still yet to explain what the potential threat was from Arbenz and Allende. Allende led a poor country on the other side of the earth from the us. It seams unlikely to me that he would take and army right across latin america , through mexcio and into the U.S . As i keep saying Arbenz wasnt comunist and was therefore unlikely work with moscow. If you want to convince anyone that these leaders possed a threat to anything but american profit margins your going to have to explain what the threat was.

 

[MSgt]

Well the only country where there was a possibilty of soviet influence was cuba, you,ve still yet to explain what the potential threat was from Arbenz and Allende. Allende led a poor country on the other side of the earth from the us. It seams unlikely to me that he would take and army right across latin america , through mexcio and into the U.S . As i keep saying Arbenz wasnt comunist and was therefore unlikely work with moscow. If you want to convince anyone that these leaders possed a threat to anything but american profit margins your going to have to explain what the threat was.

I'd like to think that you are smarter than this and are merely wishing to argue, but I'll play along...for now.....

Was the threat of Cuba a military army being led into Florida? No...it was Soviet influence and their wishes to park missiles on our side of the world. We had them tucked nicely away in Europe. Why would we allow them to get that on us on our side of the world? The reasons we have embassies is not just to protect other countries and free trade, it is also about keeping threats on the other side of the world.

1) After his inauguration, Arbenz secretly met with members of the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party. In 1952 the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party was legalized. The CIA, having drafted Operation PBFORTUNE, was already concerned about Arbenz's potential Communist ties, and the UFC lobbied the CIA and the Eisenhower administration to take action, raising similar concerns once its landholdings had been expropriated. In 1954, the Czech weaponry arrived in Guatemala May 15, [1], [2] and the U.S. administration decided to commission the CIA to sponsor a coup d'état.

2) Allende was an ardent Marxist and, as such, an outspoken critic of capitalism. He advocated far-reaching social reforms through legal means. That made him deeply unpopular within the administrations of successive U.S. presidents, from John F. Kennedy to Richard Nixon, who believed there was a danger of Chile becoming a communist state and joining the Soviet Union's sphere of influence.

These South American Governments were in "talks" with Soviet powers or they were leaning towards a communists doctrination which would have eventually welcomed Soviet influence. It is not a difficult thing to recognize a future threat with current shapings. The security and safety of all people is to be able to recognize something that could eventually harm you and prevent it from becoming that threat. In dealing with the percieved threat, actions were taken and the local populations suffered. This is what happens when Americans demand security, and whine about the conflict that ensures it. The events in SA was a direct result of our wishes to stay out of a conflict, but be secure. Diplomacy and "non-combative" tactics are not always the right thing to do. But like I said...when protecting a country, it isn't as easy as "right and wrong." It's about neccessity.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Well I had a wonderful time reading all the posts related to the Cold War in the "Iraq War" forum. The Cold War was Imperialist State vs. Imperialist State.

 

[Red_Dave]

I'd like to think that you are smarter than this and are merely wishing to argue, but I'll play along...for now.....

Was the threat of Cuba a military army being led into Florida? No...it was Soviet influence and their wishes to park missiles on our side of the world. We had them tucked nicely away in Europe. Why would we allow them to get that on us on our side of the world? The reasons we have embassies is not just to protect other countries and free trade, it is also about keeping threats on the other side of the world.

1) After his inauguration, Arbenz secretly met with members of the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party. In 1952 the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party was legalized. The CIA, having drafted Operation PBFORTUNE, was already concerned about Arbenz's potential Communist ties, and the UFC lobbied the CIA and the Eisenhower administration to take action, raising similar concerns once its landholdings had been expropriated. In 1954, the Czech weaponry arrived in Guatemala May 15, [1], [2] and the U.S. administration decided to commission the CIA to sponsor a coup d'état.

2) Allende was an ardent Marxist and, as such, an outspoken critic of capitalism. He advocated far-reaching social reforms through legal means. That made him deeply unpopular within the administrations of successive U.S. presidents, from John F. Kennedy to Richard Nixon, who believed there was a danger of Chile becoming a communist state and joining the Soviet Union's sphere of influence.

These South American Governments were in "talks" with Soviet powers or they were leaning towards a communists doctrination which would have eventually welcomed Soviet influence. It is not a difficult thing to recognize a future threat with current shapings. The security and safety of all people is to be able to recognize something that could eventually harm you and prevent it from becoming that threat. In dealing with the percieved threat, actions were taken and the local populations suffered. This is what happens when Americans demand security, and whine about the conflict that ensures it. The events in SA was a direct result of our wishes to stay out of a conflict, but be secure. Diplomacy and "non-combative" tactics are not always the right thing to do. But like I said...when protecting a country, it isn't as easy as "right and wrong." It's about neccessity.

Well to me its seams very unlikely that either of these countrys could pose a serious threat to U.S citizens just U.S profit margins. This being the case its was completely unfair to overide the democratic decisions of other nations whether they where comunist or not. The C.I.A new full well that the dictators replaceing Pinochet and Arbenz would surpress the left and thats why they suporrted them. The fact that both coups came at a time when american multinationals where loseing money illuminates this factor as a more likely reason for both coup's.

Arbenz for one was neither comunist nor in league with moscow. His policys where very similar to those put into practice Clement Attle in brittan which stayed in place during much of the cold war in that they put the main industrys under state control . Brittian obviously wasnt in league with moscow ,as it was on americas side. Leagaliseing the comunist workers party hardly consitutes being in league with moscow. Keeping the party underground would be undemocratic, if a sociast country banned a political party today american forces would be over there like a shot, ready to get the oil. By leagaliseing the party Arbenz could get the land reforms the people wanted through the legislature. Im not even sure the comunist workers party itself was pro-moscow, many comunist partys where not. Even if it was that wouldnt mean Arbenz himself was in league with moscow, the comunists where just part of his coalition. If by U.F.C you meant United Fruit Company why do you think they lobbied the government to intervene?. Du honestly think it had nothing to do with the way arbezs land reforms lost them money? Im amazed you see the government following the orders of multinationals as an acceptable way of doing things. As regards the Czech weapons I would like to see a source for that. Even if there where Czech weapons theres no knowing whether they where being taken to the government itself. There where many leftist paramilitary groups they could have been going to. Even if the weapons where going to Arbenz's government its unlikely arbenz was planning to invade america with the weapons. Its also unlikely a non comunist would launch a misile attack on america.

Il adress Allende sortly

 

[MSgt]

Well to me its seams very unlikely that either of these countrys could pose a serious threat to U.S citizens just U.S profit margins.

:roll: Again...the threat was not the current governments. It was what the current governments were doing with an enemy that would make them a future possible threat. Because actions were taken, those threats were not realized. Was Cuba a threat or was the Soviets parking nuclear missiles on communist land a threat?

Arbenz for one was neither comunist nor in league with moscow.

Funny, everything I've read has communism written all over them. I typed their names in and the first links were.....

Arbenz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arbenz_Guzman

Allende:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

 

[Herophant]

So basically you think USA did morally wrong actions to protect its national interests, and that’s ok?

 

[cnredd]

So basically you think USA did morally wrong actions to protect its national interests, and that’s ok?

If not doing these actions would result in situations that are even more "morally wrong", than absolutely...

Sometimes the options are not "right" and "wrong"...

Sometimes they are "sucks" and "really sucks"...

 

[MSgt]

So basically you think USA did morally wrong actions to protect its national interests, and that’s ok?

Right and wrong...moral and immoral....is not the issue. Nations do what is necessary. Right and wrong is what the little people complain about under what necessity provided.

Governments do not have the luxury of weighing it's duties to protect a nation of people to merely what is "right and wrong."

 

[cnredd]

Right and wrong...moral and immoral....is not the issue. Nations do what is necessary. Right and wrong is what the little people complain about under what necessity provided.

Yup...

As I previously mentioned, there are some people that would hear GWB saved an old lady from drowning in the river and have him fined for fishing without a liscense...:roll:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Yup...

As I previously mentioned, there are some people that would hear GWB saved an old lady from drowning in the river and have him fined for fishing without a liscense...

More like un-authorized use of a senior.

 

[Herophant]

Right and wrong...moral and immoral....is not the issue. Nations do what is necessary. Right and wrong is what the little people complain about under what necessity provided.

Governments do not have the luxury of weighing it's duties to protect a nation of people to merely what is "right and wrong."

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must eh? Personally I believe humanity can aspire to something greater. As for the topic at hand I guess we all agree that the USA hasn’t showed too much restraint in attacking non brutal dictatorships.