US Interventions in Latin America

[Carolina Red]

Okay man. You're gonna go down this route. Make it easier for you and just conclude it with "you don't have the knowledge".

I know enough to know the crises there is not solely due to deportation.

You’re right. It isn’t. It is also due to US foreign policy that in 1954 overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala at the request of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita) and then fomented a civil war there that lasted until 1996.

It is also due to US foreign policy sending the CIA to train roving death squads in Honduras that wiped out left wing politicians and voters in the country in the 1980s.

It is also due to US foreign policy backing a right wing drug cartel in the civil war in Nicaragua.

It is also due to US foreign policy fomenting and arming right wing militant groups participating in El Salvador’s civil war from 1979 to 1992 which resulted in another set of roving death squads killing left wing leaders, including priest Oscar Romero and 4 American nuns, among countless thousands of other people.

We then began deporting MS-13 to those areas we purposefully destabilized, leading to even more destabilization.

Are you saying gangs/poverty did not exist before the 80s?

Read the above.

If you can understand the role we played in creating the humanitarian crisis in that area, and still believe that deportation and non-admittance is part of the way to fix it, then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[Red Dreams]

You’re right. It isn’t. It is also due to US foreign policy that in 1954 overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala at the request of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita) and then fomented a civil war there that lasted until 1996.

It is also due to US foreign policy sending the CIA to train roving death squads in Honduras that wiped out left wing politicians and voters in the country in the 1980s.

It is also due to US foreign policy backing a right wing drug cartel in the civil war in Nicaragua.

It is also due to US foreign policy fomenting and arming right wing militant groups participating in El Salvador’s civil war from 1979 to 1992 which resulted in another set of roving death squads killing left wing leaders, including priest Oscar Romero and 4 American nuns, among countless thousands of other people.

We then began deporting MS-13 to those areas we purposefully destabilized, leading to even more destabilization.

Read the above.

If you can understand the role we played in creating the humanitarian crisis in that area, and still believe that deportation and non-admittance is part of the way to fix it, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Loads of instances in our history where the US government acted on behalf of big business rather than the American people.

Philippines
Chile


just for starters.

 

[Carolina Red]

Loads of instances in our history where the US government acted on behalf of big business rather than the American people.

Philippines
Chile


just for starters.

The overthrow of the government of Hawaii was also orchestrated by a fruit company (Dole).

 

[Red Dreams]

The overthrow of the government of Hawaii was also orchestrated by a fruit company (Dole).

damn those pineapples.

 

[shamans]

You’re right. It isn’t. It is also due to US foreign policy that in 1954 overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala at the request of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita) and then fomented a civil war there that lasted until 1996.

It is also due to US foreign policy sending the CIA to train roving death squads in Honduras that wiped out left wing politicians and voters in the country in the 1980s.

It is also due to US foreign policy backing a right wing drug cartel in the civil war in Nicaragua.

It is also due to US foreign policy fomenting and arming right wing militant groups participating in El Salvador’s civil war from 1979 to 1992 which resulted in another set of roving death squads killing left wing leaders, including priest Oscar Romero and 4 American nuns, among countless thousands of other people.

We then began deporting MS-13 to those areas we purposefully destabilized, leading to even more destabilization.

Read the above.

If you can understand the role we played in creating the humanitarian crisis in that area, and still believe that deportation and non-admittance is part of the way to fix it, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Deportation and non admittance are very different things. I am in 99.9% cases anti deportation but admittance is more complicated than all of this. You know as well theres plenty of ground between a wall and open borders. I find the whole idea of a wall barbaric and idiotic as I've stated many times.

Biden talks about investing in central America to help these nations so I believe that's a good idea as it addresses the crises itself. Now one person here posted some article about how all of that went wrong but that wasnt convincing enough for me. It seemed framed and besides, the intent and idea of investing in these countries is one I support. I think that helps more than open borders.

The same way as many other countries have done it. The US is hugely in favour of some form of Universal Healthcare, where there is a will, there is a way. Stop spending trillions on military equipment or fighting wars in places you have no need or right to be and spend the money on healthcare. (The irony of those objecting healthcare spending because it's socialism yet advocating military spending is hilarious tbh)

Put a little extra tax on everyone to help pay for healthcare. I'm sure, when explained properly the vast majority would accept a tax increase if it saved them from paying ridiculous and often astronomical medical bills all the time.

Nothing is easy, and yes a huge resistance would form against implementing UHC due to the insurance companies and hospitals that would lost money, but if it's what the people want then it is doable.

It shouldn't even be a discussion. It's a basic human right ffs!

Nothing I said advocated spending on defense. Health care is a human right. I believe Obama was achieving that and Hillary would have left that continue. This is precisely why Bernie fanboys who voted against hillary annoy me. The fact that our healthcare for all system hasnt been allowed to properly mature.

As for voting for Trump, I doubt I would actually do that and I said it to trigger some of the Bernie or bust meme consumers in here.

 

[Carolina Red]

Biden talks about investing in central America to help these nations so I believe that's a good idea as it addresses the crises itself. Now one person here posted some article about how all of that went wrong but that wasnt convincing enough for me. It seemed framed and besides, the intent and idea of investing in these countries is one I support. I think that helps more than open borders.

“Investing in Central America” is what we called it when we economically manipulated Central America, overthrew their governments, and fomented civil wars. Again, the first coup we did in Central America was requested by an American fruit company that we were “investing in Central America” through.

I’m all for helping Central America rebuild and resolve their issues, especially since we helped create them. That said, I fear rhat Joe Biden is the kind of politician who helped create the problem in the first place. He originally opposed our intervention in Central America in the 1980s but has gradually become more hawkish and would clearly favor “investment” that is more capitalistic in theory, meaning profit making, than other candidates in the race.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

MS-13 started in the Los Angeles. We deported gang members to Central American countries, thus making gangs a US export to the isthmus.

That’s not to mention our meddling in the internal affairs and civil wars of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador during this time period.

Those are two different issues.

On the deportation, I assume they were illegals? Surely any illegal (or even legal) immigrants should be deported for commiting a crime?

 

[Carolina Red]

Those are two different issues.

On the deportation, I assume they were illegals? Surely any illegal (or even legal) immigrants should be deported for commiting a crime?

Think about it.

After the Rodney King riots in 1992, the authorities discovered MS-13. They freaked out, created a gang task force, rounded up as many as they could find, and instead of incarcerating them... they deported them back to countries that we had already been destabilizing for decades. Effectively tossing gasoline on a flame.

We then freaked out when refugees started coming north because of this policy and now we have an administration that basically doesn’t want to help them at all.

We not only created the problem. We made it worse.

 

[ChaddyP]

You’re right. It isn’t. It is also due to US foreign policy that in 1954 overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala at the request of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita) and then fomented a civil war there that lasted until 1996.


If you can understand the role we played in creating the humanitarian crisis in that area, and still believe that deportation and non-admittance is part of the way to fix it, then I don’It is also due to US foreign policy sending the CIA to train roving death squads in Honduras that wiped out left wing politicians and voters in the country in the 1980s.

It is also due to US foreign policy backing a right wing drug cartel in the civil war in Nicaragua.

It is also due to US foreign policy fomenting and arming right wing militant groups participating in El Salvador’s civil war from 1979 to 1992 which resulted in another set of roving death squads killing left wing leaders, including priest Oscar Romero and 4 American nuns, among countless thousands of other people.

We then began deporting MS-13 to those areas we purposefully destabilized, leading to even more destabilization.

Read the above.t know what to tell you.

feck me

Thank feck my country didnt elect that Castro loving Democratic Socialist Manley in the 70s, USA government would have probaly came and turn us into a hell hole by staring a civil war.

 

[Florida Man]

feck me

Thank feck my country didnt elect that Castro loving Democratic Socialist Manley in the 70s, USA government would have probaly came and turn us into a hell hole by staring a civil war.

Not probably. Guaranteed.

 

[ChaddyP]

Not probably. Guaranteed.

yeh, But to be fair we also sent forces there. One of the very few "wars" we have been apart of

 

[Carolina Red]

feck me

Thank feck my country didnt elect that Castro loving Democratic Socialist Manley in the 70s, USA government would have probaly came and turn us into a hell hole by staring a civil war.

Remember when there was that unsuccessful coup attempt against Manley in 1976?

That was us.

 

[Red Dreams]

Remember when there was that unsuccessful coup attempt against Manley in 1976?

That was us.

We just need to look up American Imperialism on the internet.
We get loads to go through Wiki.

 

[Carolina Red]

We just need to look up American Imperialism on the internet.
We get loads to go through Wiki.

Here’s a map...

The Jamaica one isn’t on the map, but our CIA played a role in that.

 

[Red Dreams]

@Carolina Red

Being an American does not translate into supporting all the crap our government does.

 

[Carolina Red]

@Carolina Red

Being an American does not translate into supporting all the crap our government does.

I approve and support this message.

 

[MTF]

Here’s a map...

The Jamaica one isn’t on the map, but our CIA played a role in that.

US troops are not in Brazil in any significant way, and haven't been since the big naval base in WWII (which was part of an agreement between both countries).

 

[ChaddyP]

Remember when there was that unsuccessful coup attempt against Manley in 1976?

That was us.

I had no idea but it makes sense. Alot of the country citizens fled to the usa in the 70s because of manley and his closeness to castro and his ideals. Still a very popular prime minister though

 

[Carolina Red]

US troops are not in Brazil in any significant way, and haven't been since the big naval base in WWII (which was part of an agreement between both countries).

I believe that map was made back when we had a detachment of Marines stationed in São Paulo. It was deactivated in 2017.

A new US base in Brazil has been getting tossed around recently as well.

 

[Carolina Red]

Here’s an intervention map from Brown University...

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes, it has been tossed around and there's nothing agreed.

My reason to push-back is the following: while the US has a view and an interest in Brazil, internal players have much more at stake. Our politics are largely internal, and have been for about 100 years. For every US or European corporation you can think of with an interest in Brazil, there are 2 local ones of equal or same size in the country. We can elect our own left and right governments. Whether the US likes them or not is just a coincidence. This narrative that the US deals all the cards in South America is overblown. The smaller the country, the greater the ability to influence usually. But its not some sort of pure land that has been corrupted by the yanks. We're well capable of corrupting ourselves.

You do know we helped overthrow your government in 1964, right?

 

[Red Dreams]

We are doing more harm by not questioning authority.
Its about holding our elected officials accountable.

 

[MTF]

You do know we overthrew your government in 1964, right?

No, our generals in southeastern Brazil overthrew our government in 1964, with support of most of the business owners and urban middle class. They knew the US would support them if needed, but that's very different from "US overthrew".

 

[Carolina Red]

No, our generals in southeastern Brazil overthrew our government in 1964, with support of most of the business owners and urban middle class. They knew the US would support them if needed, but that's very different from "US overthrew".

I ninja edited that after I posted it to “helped overthrow” as I felt saying “we overthrew” didn’t really convey that I’m talking about our military, the CIA, and the Brazilian military altogether there.

Either way... history shows that we’ve intervened in Brazil as well and helped instal a pro-US, military government in place of a democratically elected one because we thought your president was getting cozy with the 2nd world.

 

[Red Dreams]

I ninja edited that after I posted it to “helped overthrow” as I felt saying “we overthrew” didn’t really convey that I’m talking about our military, the CIA, and the Brazilian military altogether there.

Either way... history shows that we’ve intervened in Brazil as well and helped instal a pro-US, military government in place of a democratically elected one because we thought your president was getting cozy with the 2nd world.

We are in no way innocent. lets put it that way.

 

[Carolina Red]

We are in no way innocent. lets put it that way.

Exactly.

We’ve created our own problems and now we have a government that’s upset that the consequences of our last ~50 years of foreign interventionism in this hemisphere have come home to roost.

 

[DoomSlayer]

A new US base in Brazil has been getting tossed around recently as well.

Is that really true? I'd guess that with Brazil being part of BRICS, the other members definitely would strongly be opposed to that, despite the organisations policy of non-interference.

The annual summit this year is in Brazil anyway so maybe that will be discussed there.

 

[MTF]

Is that really true? I'd guess that with Brazil being part of BRICS, the other members definitely would strongly be opposed to that, despite the organisations policy of non-interference.

The annual summit this year is in Brazil anyway so maybe that will be discussed there.

BRICs isn't much more than an acronym that a Goldman Sachs economist (and United supporter) came up with to talk about 4 large population/high growth countries. It's nothing like an EU, a NATO, or even an African Union. The countries hold summits occasionally, but don't have any meaningful multi-lateral relations, just the pre-existing bilateral ones. And for Brazil that's really its economic/commercial ties with China and not much else.

On the broader subject, one way that I've heard it well put (and this was actually about the Middle East) is that to the US each country is a square on a chessboard. But to the internal actors in those countries, the country is the entire chessboard. It's in part why the US can't strive through to some sort of "victory" in Afghanistan and Iraq, because the internal actors are wiling to commit all their resources and wait whatever time to see their own success, because their country is the only "game" they care about.

Applying to Latin America, it informs the that the US can't do that much on its own. All I know in some detail is Brazil's history, so is why I push back on that. And as I said before, I suppose that the smaller the country, the cheaper it is for the US to influence/intervene. So that explains why they've been more prolific in the smaller Central American and Caribbean countries. But there's always internal actors that have a very strong interest in the outcome of their country's politics, and so like I said before I don't think that the continent would otherwise be great and was simply "corrupted" by successive US interventions.

 

[Charlie Foley]

Is there anything untrue about the map?

Here’s one from Brown University...

Are they Soviets, too?

Post modernist Marxists taking over academia mate

 

[DoomSlayer]

BRICs isn't much more than an acronym that a Goldman Sachs economist (and United supporter) came up with to talk about 4 large population/high growth countries. It's nothing like an EU, a NATO, or even an African Union. The countries hold summits occasionally, but don't have any meaningful multi-lateral relations, just the pre-existing bilateral ones. And for Brazil that's really its economic/commercial ties with China and not much else.

On the broader subject, one way that I've heard it well put (and this was actually about the Middle East) is that to the US each country is a square on a chessboard. But to the internal actors in those countries, the country is the entire chessboard. It's in part why the US can't strive through to some sort of "victory" in Afghanistan and Iraq, because the internal actors are wiling to commit all their resources and wait whatever time to see their own success, because their country is the only "game" they care about.

Applying to Latin America, it informs the that the US can't do that much on its own. All I know in some detail is Brazil's history, so is why I push back on that. And as I said before, I suppose that the smaller the country, the cheaper it is for the US to influence/intervene. So that explains why they've been more prolific in the smaller Central American and Caribbean countries. But there's always internal actors that have a very strong interest in the outcome of their country's politics, and so like I said before I don't think that the continent would otherwise be great and was simply "corrupted" by successive US interventions.

It hasn't been BRICs for a long time, the S now stands for South Africa. The summits are annual, maybe that classes as occasional, I'm not totally sure as it's a subjective term.

I'm not going to dispute your claims about Brazil, especially since you seem to be Brazilian yourself and I'm no expert on South America at all. I do know what the ascosiation focuses on, that's why I said they have the policy of non-interference. Even so, the likes of China and Russia definitely would oppose any new American military base being situated in Brazil, whether that has already been discussed or will be at the summit in Brazil in November, I have no clue.

Generally, US interventions have always been for self-benefit, a lot of times disguised by some pseudo-altruistic goals. You are right that they may not be the sole reason for the state of the continent, however they do receive a lot from keeping the status quo and speculating on the unstable systems. It's not just in SA though, it's literally all around the world, where American political and business interests can reach. I can give multiple examples from my own country but that isn't what the topic is about so will not deviate from it.

I appreciate your post though, it's good to receive information that comes straight from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes.

 

[MichaelKorleone]

I was oblivious to most of these details until I read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky recently. Maybe these two authors are also lizard eating commie bastards following soviet propaganda but I felt their books were well researched - even though their books were published before the noughties and hence don't cover recent events much.

 

[Carolina Red]

until I read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky recently

Two excellent works. People’s History is the best history book I’ve read, hands down.

 

[Red Dreams]

I was oblivious to most of these details until I read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky recently. Maybe these two authors are also lizard eating commie bastards following soviet propaganda but I felt their books were well researched - even though their books were published before the noughties and hence don't cover recent events much.

cheers.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I was oblivious to most of these details until I read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky recently. Maybe these two authors are also lizard eating commie bastards following soviet propaganda but I felt their books were well researched - even though their books were published before the noughties and hence don't cover recent events much.

Fictitious non-fiction!

 

[Kentonio]

@Carolina Red

Being an American does not translate into supporting all the crap our government does.

If you don't vote for Democrats or Republicans then that's fair. If you do, then you've probably supported at least some of the interventionist crap via your vote.

 

[Red Dreams]

If you don't vote for Democrats or Republicans then that's fair. If you do, then you've probably supported at least some of the interventionist crap via your vote.

The point I was making is 'accountability of politicians' no matter which party.
We have to vote for candidates based on policies not what party they belong to.
The entire debate on US Politics is based on this.