[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a case to be made that #2 led to the conditions that made politicians who espouse #3 possible in countries where we were propping up those cronyist and semi-corrupt governments while surreptitiously suppressing legitimate democratic movements.

So no, I don't think we "forced" socialism on South American countries, but 'people's movements' became appealing alternatives to the authoritarian regimes we were supporting.

I don't know about "responsibility for failed socialist policies", but I don't think it's fair to examine the history of some Latin American countries socialist histories without examining how those socialist governments came to power, their predecessors and opponents, and the role the US played in supporting said predecessors and opponents.