• 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.

Russia-Venezuela arms deal

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: K1052
*yawn*

Just more Chavez PR, the anti-US rhetoric plays well among some of his supporters and he wants to be seen as a major political player in south and central America. All the while their government coffers are made fat almost exclusively off oil and gas exported to the US.

The US never had any intention, or will in the future, of actually invading Venezuela.
For Russia it is just a straight up arms sale for cold hard cash, pure economics.

As far as effectively defending against a hypothetical US attack with that equipment (esp in such low volume): HAHAHAHA.......good luck

While I agree that we hadn't planned on physically invading there are many others methods of US interference. None of which could be defended against by aircraft and helicopters, but what the heck.

When we helped overthrow Chile it was using advisors and money for the most part. Our first attempt to remove Chavez from power ended badly, but showed our hand (which is likely where 99% of his US paranoia stems from). Overreacting or not, the US is the evil aggressor in South America, and pretty much always has been. I can't blame these countries for wanting to deal with others to prepare defenses against further US interference.

We filled the vacum after Spain left for the most part and no we haven't been all that shy over the years about getting ourselves involved over the years. Hell, we flat out stole Panama from Columbia (though I think most Panamanians would agree that that worked better for them than remaining part of Columbia).

Still, the idea of a conventional invasion/attack on VZ at this point is just plain nuts (if he actually believes that). A big chunk of this bullsh!t is that Chavez wants to sit at the big boy's (US, EU, China, India, Russia, etc..) table and become some kind of larger South/Central American leader. His ambition is getting the better of him.

I mostly agree...he's made no secret of his plans for a South American league and I'm sure he'd like to be the head of it. Still, I won't blame him given the US foreign policy. Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once. If I were a foreign nation I'd consider the US the single largest threat too. Unlike Chavez though, I'd realize it wouldn't take conventional form so I wouldn't waste money on this kind of stuff.
 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yeah because we've really been threatening war with Venezuela :roll:

There are many who would be happy to invade Venezuela.

I'd like to know who.

That resembles Vietnam all over. Chavez is a nusance which will end up crumbling under its own weight eventually.

I wonder if his people know he is overpaying for equipment to fight a mythical war with the United States. While at the same time selling us oil and gladly taking the proceeds from those sales. All the while many many people live in a mud hut unable to do anything except hope.


Wasn't NK suppose to crumble on its own eventually...?

If we didnt prop them up during the 1990s and have others give them food you think they would still be in power today?

Communist and Socialist type regimes fail everytime at delivering on their promises. Eventually they all fall down as witnessed over the past 15-20 years.


They tend to go about it the wrong way, or they give up the ideals and become power hungry. If they kept the ideal pure it could work.


Yes, this is human nature.


 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont know much about the current relationship, but I would imagine if we were serious, we cut off supplies for those things anyways. You cant fly those types of aircraft for more than a couple of weeks without replacement parts.
US did that already, embargo is on since May 2006, this is why the deal went thru... Old Venezuelan F-16 will be sold to third countries for parts
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

nullSource

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.

North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.

But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.

A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.

More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion.

Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.

'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.

 
^^I don't think there's any good evidence that the Bush Regime participated in the coup(s) against Chavez. But they probably should have saved the cheering until after the coup succeeded.
 
Because we know Pat Roberton commands a military organization.

By who, I am curious of people who have real power. Not some whackjob who thinks he can leg press 1000 pounds.



Robertson definetly holds power amoung the evangelical crowd (nothing to sneeze at considering their political clout in the GOP), and has quite a bit of influence with the president himself, by all accounts meeting with him almost weekly. I don't know if he's close enough with Bush to share the secret of his cancer-curing Jesus pancakes, but both have said they are good friends.


You're right about him being a whack-job though.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.

Find me some concrete proof, otherwise you are blowing wind, which is a sign of a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts usually dont have high thresholds of proof and lots of paranoia to boot.

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

What does the GOP have to do with Chavez's supposed overthrow?
I havent seen much proof except pointing to past behavior, as evidenced by your post.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.

Find me some concrete proof, otherwise you are blowing wind, which is a sign of a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts usually dont have high thresholds of proof and lots of paranoia to boot.

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

What does the GOP have to do with Chavez's supposed overthrow?
I havent seen much proof except pointing to past behavior, as evidenced by your post.

Just give it a few years. People like you said the same crap during chile and every other event in history. Then stuff gets leaked and/or declassified and suddenly you don't have as much to say. I'm not worried about proving anything to lunatics like you right now, because I'll be content and happy until it all comes out later.

And yes, I consider you a lunatic, based on the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. If it walks like a duck, etc.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.

Find me some concrete proof, otherwise you are blowing wind, which is a sign of a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts usually dont have high thresholds of proof and lots of paranoia to boot.

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

What does the GOP have to do with Chavez's supposed overthrow?
I havent seen much proof except pointing to past behavior, as evidenced by your post.

Just give it a few years. People like you said the same crap during chile and every other event in history. Then stuff gets leaked and/or declassified and suddenly you don't have as much to say. I'm not worried about proving anything to lunatics like you right now, because I'll be content and happy until it all comes out later.

And yes, I consider you a lunatic, based on the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. If it walks like a duck, etc.

When you argument is based on wishful thinking, resorting to namecalling is all you have left.

Fox Mulder called, said it may be aliens who carried out the coup.



 
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yeah because we've really been threatening war with Venezuela :roll:

There are many who would be happy to invade Venezuela.

I'd like to know who.

That resembles Vietnam all over. Chavez is a nusance which will end up crumbling under its own weight eventually.

I wonder if his people know he is overpaying for equipment to fight a mythical war with the United States. While at the same time selling us oil and gladly taking the proceeds from those sales. All the while many many people live in a mud hut unable to do anything except hope.


Wasn't NK suppose to crumble on its own eventually...?

Kissing their rear ends with oil deals in the 1990's was suppose to magically whisk away the nuclear weapons too. Appeasement is thriving today, and as always, a complete failure.
 
The irony is that the US would be better off selling Venezuela inferior F16's for more money than a vastly superior Su-30 goes under this contract.
Our defense manufacturers would be getting the money, and Venezuela would be getting a lot less bang for its buck. Of course it's good for Russia that the US is just giving it business by refusing to sell to Venezuela.
On a more serious note, the US needs to get over itself. If Venezuela has money and Russia has military goods to sell, and they sign a contract, they are entitled to do that. Venezuela is not buying ballistic missiles or nukes or long range bombers, they are buying conventional weapons intended for self defense. The reason the US doesn't like this deal is that it wants Latin American countries either defenseless or relying on the US for their defense, so that we can dictate the politics in those countries.
The US is also expanding NATO to Russia's borders, so really we have no leg to stand on to complain about Russia's sales to Venezuela.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.

Find me some concrete proof, otherwise you are blowing wind, which is a sign of a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts usually dont have high thresholds of proof and lots of paranoia to boot.

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

What does the GOP have to do with Chavez's supposed overthrow?
I havent seen much proof except pointing to past behavior, as evidenced by your post.

Just give it a few years. People like you said the same crap during chile and every other event in history. Then stuff gets leaked and/or declassified and suddenly you don't have as much to say. I'm not worried about proving anything to lunatics like you right now, because I'll be content and happy until it all comes out later.

And yes, I consider you a lunatic, based on the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. If it walks like a duck, etc.

When you argument is based on wishful thinking, resorting to namecalling is all you have left.


hahahahhahahhaha, yeah, just wishful thinking. I have no support that the US has ever done anything similar, or even bad. Nope. I'm the only one on the planet that thinks there's any possiblity. Just my own delusional conspiracy theories. Yup. You named it. Wow, you're amazing. I hope someday to be just as amazing as you. Gee, can I have your autograph? I mean really, you're just really so amazing - to spot my obvious lunacy for thinking the US would do for the hundredth time what it did 99 times before. Because after all, nothing ever follows patterns. I mean, for instance, just because you commit a crime doesn't make you suspect in other crimes: right? Scientists never predict they'll observe certain behavior that they have observed repeatedly in the past. I mean, wow...just...wow.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Genx87
Especially after we've already tried to overthrow him once

When did this happen?

2002.

lmao, you believe everything Chavez spoon feeds you?

If you don't believe the US was involved you have an IQ of 20...tops.

The profile fit the mold of every other US sponsored overthrow (of which there are many documented). Right sponsored news agencies in the US had stories of support running within moments of the coup. The replacement was about as US friendly as could be home grown in a lab. The US supported the coup until Chavez was back in power, and only then denounced it. The subsequent statements by the US were an obvious overt warning to Chavez, and probably others. There's quite a bit of other supporting evidence when you start researching it (I did a paper on it for my Latin American History course, which is where I learned most of it). There's an overwhelming amount of international acceptance for the theory of US involvement.

Once you accept that the US has been a force for foreign destablization at least since the '40s-'50s, and you study the available information (other overthrows like iran, cuba, chile, etc - school of the americas - etc) then you begin to realize that there are good odds that any international unrest probably has at least partial roots in American interference.

Find me some concrete proof, otherwise you are blowing wind, which is a sign of a conspiracy nut. Conspiracy nuts usually dont have high thresholds of proof and lots of paranoia to boot.

Do you believe everything that the GOP spoon feeds you?

What does the GOP have to do with Chavez's supposed overthrow?
I havent seen much proof except pointing to past behavior, as evidenced by your post.

Just give it a few years. People like you said the same crap during chile and every other event in history. Then stuff gets leaked and/or declassified and suddenly you don't have as much to say. I'm not worried about proving anything to lunatics like you right now, because I'll be content and happy until it all comes out later.

And yes, I consider you a lunatic, based on the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. If it walks like a duck, etc.

When you argument is based on wishful thinking, resorting to namecalling is all you have left.


hahahahhahahhaha, yeah, just wishful thinking. I have no support that the US has ever done anything similar, or even bad. Nope. I'm the only one on the planet that thinks there's any possiblity. Just my own delusional conspiracy theories. Yup. You named it. Wow, you're amazing. I hope someday to be just as amazing as you. Gee, can I have your autograph? I mean really, you're just really so amazing - to spot my obvious lunacy for thinking the US would do for the hundredth time what it did 99 times before. Because after all, nothing ever follows patterns. I mean, for instance, just because you commit a crime doesn't make you suspect in other crimes: right? Scientists never predict they'll observe certain behavior that they have observed repeatedly in the past. I mean, wow...just...wow.


Believe I mentioned something about Paranoia in my previous post 😀
 
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yeah because we've really been threatening war with Venezuela :roll:

It's a PR stunt, Chavez gets to shake his fist at one of the world greatest superpowers and we can't do a damn thing about it.

Genx87, given our record of the US's involvement in South America and the Middle East. The ideas raised by Princeofwands and Butteflyhugs don't sound too far fetched too me.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I have no support that the US has ever done anything similar, or even bad. Nope. I'm the only one on the planet that thinks there's any possiblity. Just my own delusional conspiracy theories. Yup.

It's true.

Our beloved America would never, ever participate in any sort of terrorism or interfere in other countries affairs. In fact, The School of the Americas, infamous for training men who've gone on to terrorize, become dictators and/or form guerrilla groups in Central and South America, doesn't even exist outside of your paranoid mind.

The SOA manuals, written by the CIA and US military, advocating torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations never existed either. Another figment of your imagination.

We are the good guys, we wear the white hats, we kill for the good of the world.
Didn't you know that?
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yeah because we've really been threatening war with Venezuela :roll:

It's a PR stunt, Chavez gets to shake his fist at one of the world greatest superpowers and we can't do a damn thing about it.

Genx87, given our record of the US's involvement in South America and the Middle East. The ideas raised by Princeofwands and Butteflyhugs don't sound too far fetched too me.

That may be but that doesnt prove a thing.

 
Spanish officials under the previous administration have admitted to organizing the coup against Chavez.

It's interesting that Chavez tried to hold his own military coup earlier.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Yeah because we've really been threatening war with Venezuela :roll:

There are many who would be happy to invade Venezuela.

I'd like to know who.

That resembles Vietnam all over. Chavez is a nusance which will end up crumbling under its own weight eventually.

I wonder if his people know he is overpaying for equipment to fight a mythical war with the United States. While at the same time selling us oil and gladly taking the proceeds from those sales. All the while many many people live in a mud hut unable to do anything except hope.


I personally don't like the man, but:

a) he's been democratically elected and he enjoys great support from his people.
b) Venezuela's GDP grew a record 7.8% in 2005. Best growth rate in latin america. If it's "crumbling under its own weight", then it's a nice way to crumble.
c) GDP/capita, literacy rate, access to public hospitals have improved since Chevez is in office.
d) People DO NOT live in mud huts in Venezuela. It's not Sudan.
 
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I have no support that the US has ever done anything similar, or even bad. Nope. I'm the only one on the planet that thinks there's any possiblity. Just my own delusional conspiracy theories. Yup.

It's true.

Our beloved America would never, ever participate in any sort of terrorism or interfere in other countries affairs. In fact, The School of the Americas, infamous for training men who've gone on to terrorize, become dictators and/or form guerrilla groups in Central and South America, doesn't even exist outside of your paranoid mind.

The SOA manuals, written by the CIA and US military, advocating torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations never existed either. Another figment of your imagination.

We are the good guys, we wear the white hats, we kill for the good of the world.
Didn't you know that?

Don't forget, we didn't create al-qauda or the taliban either.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I have no support that the US has ever done anything similar, or even bad. Nope. I'm the only one on the planet that thinks there's any possiblity. Just my own delusional conspiracy theories. Yup.

It's true.

Our beloved America would never, ever participate in any sort of terrorism or interfere in other countries affairs. In fact, The School of the Americas, infamous for training men who've gone on to terrorize, become dictators and/or form guerrilla groups in Central and South America, doesn't even exist outside of your paranoid mind.

The SOA manuals, written by the CIA and US military, advocating torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations never existed either. Another figment of your imagination.

We are the good guys, we wear the white hats, we kill for the good of the world.
Didn't you know that?

Don't forget, we didn't create al-qauda or the taliban either.


Yup, and don't forget about this, while you are dealing with this stuff:

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2004/25052.html

The CIA recruited and groomed Mobutu in Belgium, where he was exiled as a member of the opposition to Belgian rule. Eisenhower ordered the murder of Lumumba, first prime minister of newly independent Congo, fearful of another Cuba. CIA operative Larry Devlin brought Mobutu back to Congo to lead the coup. Lumumba was murdered. Mobutu was supported by every president from Kennedy to Clinton.

Here are the fruits of Mobutu:

* Per capita income in 1980 1/10 of what it was at independence in 1960
* In the 1990's poverty 'dropped below measureable levels'
* One paved road in ten that existed at independence made it to the 1990's
* The only reliable surface transport was the Congo River, but there were no boats to travel it
* Half the country's children die by the age of five
* 6,000% inflation in 1992 (24 million Zaires to the dollar). When Mobutu ran short of funds for his various pleasure palaces and escapades, he simply minted more.
* 80% unemployment
* in 1986 schools received $8 million of the $73 million budgeted for them, health programs $8 million of $24 million
* Zaire received 1 $billion in US aid during the Reagan years
* Mobutu's personal wealth was estimated at over $5 billion, roughly equivalent to the national debt. He opened his own Swiss bank.
* All of this rampant gangsterism was of course accompanied by brutal repression of all opposition.

And:

"[Rep. Howard] Wolpe had been a scholar of African affairs before he went to Washington. He clashed repeatedly with [Chester] Crocker for eight years as Africa subcommittee chairman. When I asked Wolpe about Crocker's argument to me about the legitimacy of protecting American interests in the Cold War, Wolpe replied, 'I have no quarrel with that. But every time America stood up for dictators, we actually did very little to advance American interests. We stood up for regimes that were inherently unstable. We were complicit in their crimes. We fed instability on the entire continent?.This engagement or walk away analysis-it's a false dichotomy. We ended up creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Mobutu especially. We were always told that there was no alternative to Mobutu. In the end we ensured there was nothing left behind." (78)

And:

"In my own interviews with apartheid's securocrats, they never failed to remind me of what they took pains to describe as their close relationship with 'you guys,' as one put it. 'It's a brotherhood,' General Joe Buchner, the notorious covert operative and torturer who was at the heart of the 'black-on-black' violence in South Africa, told me wistfully: 'We in the police of the various offices overseas-everybody knew you. Our training came mostly from you guys-and the Brits.'"

And then Haiti, Grenada, Liberia...
 
Back
Top