----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Request for Proposals
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:10:09 -0500, Dan Minette > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > >>Other than > > > giving some people twitchy fingers and delusions of grandeur what does > > > having no enemy in the world being one tenth as strong as us done? > > > > It has allowed us to be a lot firmer with right wing dictatorships that are > > in our sphere of influence. If you look at the Latin American governments > > during and after the Cold War, you will see a remarkable shift in the type > > of governments. Right wing dictatorships lost the leverage of "do you want > > Communists instead of us?" > > > > The one military intervention in Latin America during this time ended up > > very successful. There is now a representative government in Panama; > > superior to both Noriaga for both the US and the people of Panama. > > > > Dan M. > > Panama is better, the family of a former dictator still runs the > country but they hold elections. > > I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships under Bush 1 > and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported > creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam. Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its coincidence that there are far fewer military dictatorships in Latin America now than before the Cold War ended? Right now, Haiti is the one I can think of....which is what you cover below...which I can get to. I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see the justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul made the same claim, and I responded as follows: "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it." I didn't see an answer from him on this. If you could enlighten me on this, > Bush 2 has even brought back all the old 'cold warriors' that Bush 1 > ignored and has put heavy pressure, including removing one, against > the Americas governments not supportive enough of GOP positions. >From what I read, Aristide was corrupt, lost popular support at home, and the US refused to use its military to support him. > The Organization of American States is not happy with Bush 2: That's fair enough. I'm not happy with Bush 2, but that doesn't undo my claim. > (AP) - Despite objections from the United States and Haiti, the > Organization of American States opened the way for an investigation > into the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. > > The OAS General Assembly also called for elections in Haiti as soon as > possible. But the debate over a probe into the coup went for hours > until the body on Tuesday night finally approved a resolution calling > Aristide's ouster unconstitutional and allowing an assessment of what > occurred. Which seems quite reasonable. I'm not arguing that the US was flawless in this; but I can sympathize with the unwillingness to use US troops to stop the rebels. > Aristide accuses the United States of forcing him from office - a > charge Washington denies. A U.S.-supplied jet flew Aristide to the > Central African Republic on Feb. 29 as [- US armed] rebels advanced on > the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, and he is now in asylum in > South Africa after spending several weeks in Jamaica. Is there any evidence that the US actually supported the coup instead of simply refusing to use its troops to fight it? With all due respect, unsubstantiated claims by Aristide is not really evidence. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
