This isn't like finding a new job: this is my birthright AND my responsibility to fix what is wrong. There are still people out there who are willing to think for themselves instead of swallowing the party line from the propaganda machine, and as long as there is breath in me I will work to restore tha values of the founding fathers. So take your love it or leave it mentality and shove it.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945-present
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This isn't like finding a new job: this is my birthright AND my responsibility to fix what is wrong. There are still people out there who are willing to think for themselves instead of swallowing the party line from the propaganda machine, and as long as there is breath in me I will work to restore tha values of the founding fathers. So take your love it or leave it mentality and shove it.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
According to your own link to US interventions, our founding fathers were no saints in that department. Spanish Florida, Cuba, Polynesia, The Barbary Coast, Mexico... It seems we are carrying on their traditional values rather well.
Francodman
Diamond Member
i didn't rely on Z magazine for my facts, I was given this article by my US history teacher (heh) Of course I try to keep an objective view on any information I come across. I guess the purpose of this thread was to help educate myself and others on what is real and what is not. Still, other than the Chinese incident, I havne't seen anything to disprove the claims about the south american countries.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Objectivity in these matters requires IMO a greater worldview of all these 'interventions' before 1991. It is easy for us today to consider communism and the U.S.S.R. merely a 'percieved' threat knowing that it collapsed as peacefully as it did, but before the curtain fell there were some 60,000+ nuclear warheads collectively owned by America and Russia and the threat was somewhat more palpable.
Why the hyperactive interventions in satellite socialist states? Case studies: The fallout of relations between communist China and the U.S.S.R., or the pullout of armanents in Cuba after the Missile Crisis. Mao criticized the restraint of the Soviet leadership in holding non-proliferation talks and darkly hinted at his country's fortitude in using nuclear weapons against the West. Documentation exists that Castro directly requested the permission to attack the southern U.S. with all the weapons at his disposal if a threatening move was made. Simply put, if nothing else, socialist countries - especially ones on your backdoor (eg. South America) - are a legitimate cause for concern. This is of course ignoring the simple theory of the zero-sum game of capitalism vs. communism.
No explanations we give today are justification for the propping up of friendly dictators and oppressive regimes in those times. Perhaps people are right in saying that 9/11 was the culmination of the world's hatred for the U.S.'s imperialistic tendencies (I disagree, but it's a mildly valid viewpoint). The article linked however is academically dishonest at best.
And had we not responded to 9/11, do you think that another attack would not have been launched.
Our response to the Cole bombing was so muted, that we encouraged more attacks.
For 10+ years, we pretty much kept turning the other cheek, trying to allow diplomacy to work.
IT DID NOT WORK. To combat terrorism, you have to destroy it at its source.
Stunt
Diamond Member
The terrorists are busy killing Americans on their home turf...with great success. The insurgents are entering the country and raging a holy war.
Leave their turf and you will see many more attacks on Americans...in the forms of beheadings and bombings...
To think dipolomacy doesnt work is a grave assumption.
PS. tell me how dipomacy didnt work in libya...there's something Bush has touted....or is that the exception to the rule 😛
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
I love that word "progressive." It's nice that the writer considers a Stalinist dictator and his forces "progressive." Sure, South Korea wasn't exactly the best example of democracy for quite a few years but it was and still is a million times better than the North.
Of course the communists didn't do the exact same thing...That wouldn't make any sense at all. Communists are extremely good people that wouldn't hurt a fly. There were no other factors that led to the Berlin Wall... /sarcasm
I really don't even feel like going through half the other bullsh!t that this site describes. Nice attempt at revisionist history though.
alexruiz
Platinum Member
So, AFTER the USA tried to invade Cuba, then Castro shoud have stayed quiet. His request is fully rational, it would be in self-defense. I even highlighted the line of "threatening" move...... And why are socialist countries "legitimate cause of concern"? I think the rest of the world should agree that "imperalistic" countries are a legitimate cause of concern....... Bring facts, no BS.
Alex
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Way to cut a paragraph in half and miss the entire point. :roll: If you were able to decipher context, the point was that both Mao and Castro were quite willing to strike first with nuclear arms and to hell with the world after that. THAT'S what made socialist countries on one's backdoor a cause for concern. Unpredictable, hostile dictators backed with Soviet-supplied, perhaps once again nuclear-tipped armanents with generally unprofessional armies? In Cold War times that would have made a pretty "legitimate cause of concern" in my books.
There's also the fact that the U.S. did not try to invade Cuba during the CMC, but while we're supporting a rewritten form of history, sure - let's throw that in too!
alexruiz
Platinum Member
If they were willing to strike first (assuming that is right), it is because they were already attacked before (any half decent story book will confirm it). The nuclear capabilities were "deterrents". In your own words, (THAT'S what made socialist countries on one's backdoor a cause for concern. ) Apply the same to a imperialistic country that invades others for bogus reasons or greed to protect the interest of a minority... it is a cause of concern.... and legitimate cause to have the weapons ready for the greedy imperialists....
See? The same narrow-scope rethoric applies both ways.
Hostile dictators? Do you know who Salvador Allende was? Tell me. Do you know that the Nicaragua of Daniel Ortega was holding elections regularly? How were they hostiles or dictators? They only wanted to feed their people!!!! I expect a GOOD answer here, so don't try to hide.
Any half decent story book will tell you that the USA provided people and wepons for the pigs bay attempt of invasion.... Wait, liberation forces to support the "will of the people" :roll: But being in context. Have you EVER been in Cuba? If you have, do you have the language and culture knowledge to learn and analyze what the locals see every day? If so, your perception of the things are valid. If not , they are full of you know what. If you think those interventions and invasions were to "protect YOU", the TV has already done irreversible damage. In all those cases, there were economic interests that affected the RICH minority, and the government wanted to keep them happy. After all, that rich minority is the one that really matters to the goverment. The only step missing is to convince the MOB that they are under attack, or that a threat is real and close, and you have to act to "protect freedom"...... :roll:
I expect my answer for Allende and Ortega. Have the b@lls needed to respond for your Bsh!t.
Alex
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
Oh Lord. "Do you know who this was? Do you know who that was?" Spare me your chic moral outrage. :roll:
So first we come to Cuba and your beloved Castro. Let's see what he had to say during the CMC.
A nuclear secret in '62 Cuba crisis...
At the height of the missile crisis, on Oct. 27, when the world seemed poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust, Castro had appeared to urge Moscow to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on America.
"If the imperialists invade Cuba,'' Castro wrote in a letter to Khrushchev, "the danger that that aggressive policy poses for humanity is so great that following that event, the Soviet Union must never allow the circumstances in which the imperialists could launch the first nuclear strike."
"If they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba . . . that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through an act of legitimate self-defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be.''
When the stunned Soviet ambassador in Havana, Aleksander Alekseev, asked Castro if he was really advocating that Moscow be the first to launch its nukes, Castro demurred.
"No,'' he answered, according to Alekseev's report to Moscow. "I don't want to say that directly, but under certain circumstances we must not wait to experience the perfidy of the imperialists, letting them initiate the first strike.''
What does this tell us about the supposedly sound-minded dictator neighbour of the U.S.? Khrushchev, Alekseev and others in the Party are horrified by Castro's statement, and on request of an explanation he waffles. Just the kind of guy you want pointing a couple of ICBMs at you! Maybe in your fantasy land, but not in the real world. Again, CONTEXT. "This is why the U.S. did this." Not, "This is why the U.S. was morally justified in doing this."
Go ahead and play with balls if you'd like - that act of impotent and perpetual rage at what now passes for ancient history seems to be the last resort of those who seek to find an enemy to rail against, while the rest of the world has moved on. It's a new age and a new century. Try to catch up. :disgust:
Learn to read. Then comes lessons in recognizing context. Nobody is trying to justify the meddling of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as anything more than the Risk game writ large that it was, but what we're trying to provide here is what you seem to have so much trouble with - context.
So first we come to Cuba and your beloved Castro. Let's see what he had to say during the CMC.
A nuclear secret in '62 Cuba crisis...
At the height of the missile crisis, on Oct. 27, when the world seemed poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust, Castro had appeared to urge Moscow to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on America.
"If the imperialists invade Cuba,'' Castro wrote in a letter to Khrushchev, "the danger that that aggressive policy poses for humanity is so great that following that event, the Soviet Union must never allow the circumstances in which the imperialists could launch the first nuclear strike."
"If they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba . . . that would be the moment to eliminate such danger forever through an act of legitimate self-defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be.''
When the stunned Soviet ambassador in Havana, Aleksander Alekseev, asked Castro if he was really advocating that Moscow be the first to launch its nukes, Castro demurred.
"No,'' he answered, according to Alekseev's report to Moscow. "I don't want to say that directly, but under certain circumstances we must not wait to experience the perfidy of the imperialists, letting them initiate the first strike.''
What does this tell us about the supposedly sound-minded dictator neighbour of the U.S.? Khrushchev, Alekseev and others in the Party are horrified by Castro's statement, and on request of an explanation he waffles. Just the kind of guy you want pointing a couple of ICBMs at you! Maybe in your fantasy land, but not in the real world. Again, CONTEXT. "This is why the U.S. did this." Not, "This is why the U.S. was morally justified in doing this."
Ooooooh, alexruiz expects an answer. You honestly expect anyone to give a fsck? :roll: It's amazing how for someone who's so very into enquiring into other's knowledge of foreign cultures, you skipped over the fact that the Sandinista anthem includes the words, "Fight against the Yankee, the enemy of humanity." The Sandinistas, hostile? Why of course not!
Go ahead and play with balls if you'd like - that act of impotent and perpetual rage at what now passes for ancient history seems to be the last resort of those who seek to find an enemy to rail against, while the rest of the world has moved on. It's a new age and a new century. Try to catch up. :disgust:
alexruiz
Platinum Member
You took this long for this useless piece of cr@p!!!!???
The cuban revolution took place in 1959, the event you are mentioning (in case they may be true) are from 1962. From elementary school (you can write, so I assume you attended it...) 1962 comes after 1959. What happened in between? How about a FAILED attempt to take down the new revolution goverment (pigs bay)? The agression came from the USA. Now, back into the "facts" you give, Oct 27, 1962 is AFTER the missile crisis started. By that time, Kennedy and company had already threatened to invade the island. The objective of the soviet missiles in cuba was to provide deterrent. The nation is under threat of war and invasion (real threat), so if you have those weapons you can use them in legitimate defense. The events were already under rolling, and your own "facts" prove it!
My beloved Castro? No, not at all. He has made several mistakes, many of them quite bad. However, after reading about him A LOT you can get a full perspective..... Wait, I forgot! He is commie, he should be evil! that is what the government and the media say, and they should be right, after all, you have the obligation to be a patriot and believe your president...... :roll: By the way, the Cuban revolution was to topple dictator Fulgencio Batista, put in place by the "defenders of freedom and enemies of dictators and oppression" (spit the piece of tongue you bited after saying "dictators")
Now, back into Nicaragua (this is getting fun) the "Sandinists" took that name after César Augusto Sandino, who fought in the 1930s against the USA (Pershing) when they imposed Anastacio Somoza father as DICTATOR of the country. Sandino was killed eventually, but his legacy lasted for decades. I'll write it again, dictator Somoza was put in place by the USA (spit another piece of tongue you bited after saying "dictators"). Heck, even Woldroow Wilson (president of the USA, you should know about him....) said about Somoza "He is a son of a bitch, but he is the son of OUR bitch....." Well, you don't expect the Sandinists to have love for the USA in their anthem after a dictator was put in place to opress the country? Wait, Wilson and Pershing saved Nicaragua form the evil commies...... :roll: at least in the 30s. Somoza father dies, and Somoza jr took his place until the Sandinists finally toppled him.
Let's go into Chile. Allende was elected in a democratic way, and then killed by a coup supported by the USA to get in power dictator Augusto Pinochet (spit the last piece of tongue)
Finally, you resort into crappy rethorics to avoid giving the facts. I have to say in your favor that you clearly stated that "No explanations we give today are justification for the propping up of friendly dictators and oppressive regimes in those times. Perhaps people are right in saying that 9/11 was the culmination of the world's hatred for the U.S.'s imperialistic tendencies (I disagree, but it's a mildly valid viewpoint). The article linked however is academically dishonest at best. Learn to read. Then comes lessons in recognizing context. Nobody is trying to justify the meddling of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. "
That is far more advanced that what the bulk of the brainwasehd neocons would even dare to admit. However, you are the one forgetting context: in the majority of the cases the USA was the agressor. So, who gives a fvxck of who I am or what I want? Nobody really. But as someone who likes to see REAL proof, I stand in my position to ask for more proof than just bluffing or spreading lies just because that is the "official version"
The ball is your court
Alex
miketheidiot
Lifer
this thread is funny. I love the "well we're better than china so stop bitching" comment. Talk about setting your standards low :roll:
That fact is we spout all this rhetoric and when it turns out to be a load of bull, we excuse it. Certain people talk about "bring democracy to Iraq", but look at the "democracy" and "feedom" that we have brought elsewhere. I would like these people to ask themselves why they talk the talk and then dont follow up.
That fact is we spout all this rhetoric and when it turns out to be a load of bull, we excuse it. Certain people talk about "bring democracy to Iraq", but look at the "democracy" and "feedom" that we have brought elsewhere. I would like these people to ask themselves why they talk the talk and then dont follow up.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
