- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
- Messages
- 8,572
- Reaction score
- 1,394
Good. The less influence on the world that the murderous ideology of Marxism has, the better.
You pointed out a fact that is often overlooked when we look back at our interference in regions. Often times, these regions are the playgrounds of multiple world powers. The world is certainly all fucked up from all the meddling, but the story of how our world came to be has many authors.
It's not a good thing, I agree. It just creates a scenario where all you have are bad options. On one hand, you could let the Soviets just do whatever they wanted to, and that's definitely a bad thing. On the other, you can jump into the fray, which obviously didn't turn out so well. And in both, the people of those countries got screwed.Indeed, but its no justification and certainly didnt made things better, i reckon people naturally tend to look downward to those who they feel are inferior to them.
It's not a good thing, I agree. It just creates a scenario where all you have are bad options. On one hand, you could let the Soviets just do whatever they wanted to, and that's definitely a bad thing. On the other, you can jump into the fray, which obviously didn't turn out so well. And in both, the people of those countries got screwed.
I'm not sure it's looking down at people who you think are inferior. I wouldn't say that it's based on race or anything. It's a power thing, in my view. "It doesn't matter who they are, as long as they aren't working for the other side" sort of thing.
Lol, all I said is that I don’t want communism in Latin America. You jumped to the conclusion that I support right wing death squads.
I don't think it's looking down on anyone except the Soviets themselves. Why do you interpret it the way that you do?The idea that its either let the soviets press with the guerrillas and counter with your own guerrillas is part of said "looking down" on people.
Realpolitik in a lot of cases was just simply a case of prideful disdain for the issues that a lot of said countries were facing.
I don't think it's looking down on anyone except the Soviets themselves. Why do you interpret it the way that you do?
It seems to me as a question of, "The people of Country X are being manipulated by the Soviets. We can either let that country fall to Communism, allowing those death squads to go unchecked, leading to thousands of deaths, the loss of a trading partner, and a Soviet presence close to home; or we can push back against the Soviets by arming Y group. What's it going to be?"
Colombia will resist an authoritarian regime.It would seem that authoritarian regimes happen when despair set in. Colombia, perhaps, does not see itself as so hopeless that Communism is seen as the answer to those maladies?
They won't accept an authoritarian, we will see how things goCertainly possible. A casual look through history shows us that desperate people tend to support authoritarian regimes, both far-right and far-left. Perhaps the people of Colombia are saying to themselves, "Bringing one of those into power seems like a bad idea." Those that are capable of making such a choice about extremists are themselves not desperate enough to accept the terms of such a regime.
Yeah, I'm less a fan of invasions, such as Iraq. I was cool with invading Afghanistan to route out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, denying them terrain that they were using to mass forces, train personnel, collect weapons and money, and launch operations from. I thought it was dumb when we started the whole nation-building thing there, but I think that President Bush defaulted to that because it was taking a few years to find UBL, and he didn't want to say to the American people, "This is still a work in progress." Instead, he wanted to get all moralistic and say, "This is about the freedom on the Afghan people," as though that was a better mission. I would have preferred him to say, "Our guys on the ground are killing a lot of terrorists. We just haven't found the leader yet, but with each passing day, there are less terrorists in that country, and that's a good thing. Be patient, we'll get him."This is the bridge to total non-interventionism that's hard for me to cross. I'm not about sending in our people to be apart of a mass murder campaign, end up shot and blown up themselves all while we level a country as uninhabitable with depleted uranium munitions.... But I like the thought of giving people a better fighting chance with armament. I'd gladly fund that activity voluntarily, though I certainly wouldn't obligate anyone else to.
Never say never, but I'm optimistic in the near-term based on the results of this electionThey won't accept an authoritarian, we will see how things go
I don't think it's looking down on anyone except the Soviets themselves. Why do you interpret it the way that you do?
It seems to me as a question of, "The people of Country X are being manipulated by the Soviets. We can either let that country fall to Communism, allowing those death squads to go unchecked, leading to thousands of deaths, the loss of a trading partner, and a Soviet presence close to home; or we can push back against the Soviets by arming Y group. What's it going to be?"
False dichotomy, how about working with the legitimate government in fighting said guerrillas and accepting that things will not always go the way you want?
Also maybe understand why the people are pissed at these governments and do something about it so that they dont fall into guerrillas? the US used plan Marshal to stop soviets from taking over the power void left in Europe, but in Latin America it decided it was much better to support banana republics and death squads against legitimate concerns.
When that option was available, that was often pursued. That was documented to have happened in Colombia against Communist guerilla groups, as well as in Bolivia against Communist guerillas.False dichotomy, how about working with the legitimate government in fighting said guerrillas and accepting that things will not always go the way you want?
Also maybe understand why the people are pissed at these governments and do something about it so that they dont fall into guerrillas? the US used plan Marshal to stop soviets from taking over the power void left in Europe, but in Latin America it decided it was much better to support banana republics and death squads against legitimate concerns.
If that's an option. In the event that there's already a red tide over the "legitimate" gov't that's not really the case, right?
Concession noted
My objection is to "right wing" death squads.
Knowing America’s foreign policy creating more instability seems like the most likely outcome.
Give me an example.
Any example where the communist party has gained power. I'm not sure of the source for your incredulity. How would you propose using a "legitimate" gov't, when the gov't is in control by communists? The recourse of arming the people (and training them if needed) to take back their country seems like the appropriate strategy...or?