FWIW, I do *TRY* not to get political here, but ...
From: "William Robb"
From: "P. J. Alling"
> Cuba, Nicaragua, Peoples Republic of Congo, North Vietnam, how global do
> you want it to be?
Not sure about the Congo, other than it was more of a UN failure (and
Belgium bailing on very short notice) that caused Lumumba to ASK the USSR
for help.
Most of what's wrong in the Congo can be blamed on Belgium's tenure.
Immediately after granting independence, Belgium appears to have had a
hand in fomenting the revolt in Katanga. Lumumba appears to have turned
to the Soviets when the UN and the US refused to act.
U.S. inaction based on somebody called Lumumba a communist, and instead
of doing something to woo him away from the comunists we pushed him into
their arms.
Plus, he was assassinated within six months; an "action" for which the
U.S. and the CIA would be blamed for 47 years.
(The Belgian government finally admitted their responsibility in 2008.)
I'm pretty sure that embargoing Cuba had something to do with them
approaching Russia.
In many ways the Cuban Revolution is a classic example of blow-back,
especially from different agencies of the U.S. government working at
cross purposes. The U.S. tried to play both sides against the middle and
lost. We'd have still lost if Castro had been defeated.
I will grant that the Eisenhower administration, pushed from the right
in Congress, was reluctant to impose the embargo that ultimately
undercut the moderate non-communists in the Cuban Revolution and opened
the door for the USSR to step in.
One interesting note is how the CIA's role assisting the Castro
brothers' & Che Guevara's travel from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 redounded
to our benefit much the same way Imperial Germany's decision to assist
Lenin in his return to Russia in 1917 later benefited the Germans.
Nicaragua might have gone differently if the USA had not backed the Contras.
(and when did diplomatic ties automatically mean conquest anyway?)
Ultimately US backing for the Contras had less effect in Nicaragua than
it had in Southern California. The Sandinista government was removed
from power at the ballot box.
And the ballot box brought them back, then removed them again ...
North Vietnam also had strong diplomatic ties to Russia, but this would only
be construed as a Soviet conquest by the very paranoid.
Mostly North Vietnam courted the USSR as a counter to China, which they
saw (and still see) as a bigger threat than the U.S.
The U.S. screwed the pooch early with Vietnam. We had the opportunity to
support a truly democratic government in Vietnam at the end of WWII.
Guess what document Ho Chi Minh plagiarized heavily for his
"Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam"?
Here's a clue: "All men are created equal; they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
Instead, we supported French efforts to re-impose colonial rule over
their former "empire". It was a decision that ultimately ended up
screwing not only the U.S., but France and Vietnam. "North Vietnam" is
an artificial construct "created" when the U.S. convinced "South
Vietnam" to abrogate the 1954 Geneva Accords.
As with Cuba, U.S. actions undercut non-communist parties in what
started as a multi-party democracy, resulting in a marxist totalitarian
state.
My point is that in each of these cases, the U.S. action brought about a
result completely at odds with U.S. stated goals, and that we are today
paying additional costs for not being true to our ideals.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
