On 5/12/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM > Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > <snip> > > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot > > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a > > camp, but there were terrorists. > > >Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist > >activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due > to > >terrorists. > > It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths > in > the months following VE day.
I had read an article or two indicating none directly attributed to terrorists in Germany but even taking your 20 that is a far cry from Iraq. >> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to > >> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting > >> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America. > > >We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not > >following orders Reagan ordered him removed. > > Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is > actually > important. > > >There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older > >dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power. > > The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between > Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him. The Cold War > was won between those actions. For over 40 years, we were willing to > support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might > be > a Communist takeover. One exception to this was when we decided to drop > support of Bastidas around '59. I think it is fair to say that was > considered an object lesson by many. > > Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way > far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner. Chile comes to > mind here. But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say > that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing > dictatorships as the least bad option. In the '70s and early '80s, the > swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable. > > But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships > vanished. The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a > right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally. Thus, it was > the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for > supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now > that this risk had been removed. > > Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US > was > so strong. Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little > dependance on Latin America. Panama, with the US interest in the canal > staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case. > > I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we > have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships. We now consider > them against our interests. For the most part, I think the message was > received. I don't know, I could be convinced but I didn't see Bush I as the mover against right-wing dictatorships you evidently do. Not to say he wasn't an improvement over Reagan and Bush 2. >> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether > >> representative government was just first developed in the West > >>(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative > government > is an > >>artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring > dictatorships, > >> monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for > the > former. > > >There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the > Greeks > >were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to > >discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them > >counting to make decisions. I thought this was one of the best alternate > >histories. > > What I've read indicates that the Greek democracies bore little > resemblance to our own. The patriarchs of the families got to vote, not > the free males. > The point of the story was the idea of making decisions by counting and not fiat was totally foreign. Now I am not sure if this is correct that Greece was the origin of the idea of democracy for all places. I seem to remember Iceland having the first parliamentary system the Althing in the 900s and I don't think the Greeks influenced that.. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
