American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 4 of 12
"Well, that's the communist argument"
Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!
No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.
So, quick, tell me-
What's the difference between an election and a junta?
The difference between democracy and capitalism?
The difference between tyranny and communism?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. It wasn’t a comeback, dude. That’s really the communist argument. "Power to the proletariat," and whatnot.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Well, that's the communist argument"
Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!
Quote:In some cases, perhaps, maybe the election was democratic, although that’s often suspect considering the degree of corruption, but even assuming that it was, that doesn’t make the country democratic. An election does not a democracy make.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
See, that's what I said- You're always sticking up for the big guy!
In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s true.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
Quote:US-backed dictators are OK? No. I don’t think I ever said that. I think that is, perhaps, what you might want to read in my post. I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion, though. US-backed dictators are not necessarily OK, but they are sometimes a necessary evil. I guess in an ideal world the US would never back any dictators. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be any dictators to back. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in this one, and we have to do the best with what we’ve got.
Originally posted by rue:
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
Quote:So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
Quote:What Brazilian President? Are you talking about JoAo Goulart? He was a communist dude. I’m sorry, but he was. And he wasn’t elected president either. He was vice-president, and the elected president resigned. That’s not really a coup. I guess in a part of world where coups are often the norm, that’s pretty democratic. I’m sorry to bash your hopes and dreams here, but South America has not been a bastion of democracy.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:
As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.
Dominican Republic
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
"1930 Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic
1963 CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic
1965 A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this 'Communist rebellion,' with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua."
Ecuador
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/ecuador.htm
"In September 1960, a new government headed by José María Velasco Ibarra came to power. Velasco had won a decisive electoral victory, running on a vaguely liberal, populist, something-for- everyone platform. He was no Fidel Castro, he was not even a socialist, but he earned the wrath of the US State Department and the CIA by his unyielding opposition to the two stated priorities of American policy in Ecuador: breaking relations with Cuba, and clamping down hard on activists of the Communist Party and those to their left. ... *the article goes on to describe at length directly-involved CIA covert operations* ... in November 1961, the military acted."
El Salvador
The list of recent US involvements in El Salvador is lengthy, so here are references to historical articles:
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page46.html
discussion of "death squads" (UN Truth Commission on Salvadoran Death Squads)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm
"To defeat the rebels, (against a military dictatorship) the US equipped and trained an army which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of old people women and children."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All righty then. I actually do have access to the as of now still classified **US government** documentation as well as the currently declassified **US government** documentation. So you’re probably not telling me anything I haven’t already seen. From the looks of it, much of it has been taken out of context or just wrong. Although it is true that the US has been drawn into the currupt and often violent politics of South America on many occassions. I’m not really sure what you point is, but if posting this floats your boat then that’s okay with me.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:
As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
These are your words, not mine.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to add my two cents.
Anyone claiming Brasil is a democracy is full of it. Having lived through at least 6 Brasilian presidents & elections including an election on governmental reform, I can tell you Brasil is only a democracy on paper and in pipe dreams. Lula might be able to make the country a democracy but it would take a miracle.
I would even argue that America is not a democracy as you have an either/or government. The choices we have for President is MULTI-MILLIONAIRE FROM []Texas []Mass. Pick one.
As for the rest of it, I leave you with my signature:
PS. I am now stuck singing Irish songs thanks to reading this thread 
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME