The South turns Red : Ortega sworn in

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
All by the USA! That is an impressive number and something I am very proud of as an American, if true

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be an american, but I hope you are not representative of the majority!

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All by the USA! That is an impressive number and something I am very proud of as an American, if true

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be an american, but I hope you are not representative of the majority!

[/ QUOTE ]

[boracay]

another example here:
COLOMBIAN COCA-COLA MAFIA
In Carepa, Colombia where a Coca-Cola bottling plant operates, the managers employed members of one of the brutal, armed paramilitary groups, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, to oppose the union workers. CocaCola does not own the bottling plants, but contracts with the companies that do. As the union at the bottling plant began organizing, the paramilitary group began threatening the union organizers. The Colombian Trade Union Federation reports that 45 trade unionists were murdered in the first eight months of 2003, and 117 or more were murdered in 2002. Fearing for their lives, about 60 out of 100 plant workers quit and fled the area. The union was crushed and the new workers were hired at wages less than half of what the union members were making. The union wage of about $380 per month dropped to $130. - excerpts from the book Censored 2006 P. Phillips

[canis582]

If everyone is so happy with the relationship between multinationals and latin countries, why does the US keep overthrowing governments?

Its not about technology in many cases...there were tons of silk being exported from some poor se azn country, but no silk mills: they were all in Britian.

[b]Can't you at least admit that the US pays thugs to enslave south americans?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
In Carepa, Colombia where a Coca-Cola bottling plant operates, the managers employed members of one of the brutal, armed paramilitary groups, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, to oppose the union workers. CocaCola does not own the bottling plants, but contracts with the companies that do.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your tryin to make the point that these 3rd world countries are full of murderous thugs.....then good job.

The Columbian govt strong armed Coca Cola to the terms you describe. The fault lies with those Columbian thugs...not Coca Cola. In the USA where Coca Cola runs the plants............things are civilized.

I use to work for a telcom company. We tried for years to get cell phone service in Zimbabwe but Robert Mugabe and his thugs demanded too much. Both is company assets and in bribes... This is the type of corruption which keeps Africa in the cess pool of poverty that they dwell in....

The poverty in Latin America, Africa, and other places is a result of self inflicted wounds.... They keep killing the golden goose then they are baffled why people stop bringing them more golden gooses...

[Brainwalter]

geece.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Your propagandist post, oozing of Manichean thinking and calculated to goad without good reason, lacks the necessary dripping sanctimony that is needed to elevated it to Nobel Prize Status.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm glad you liked it. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

But what exactly am I propagandizing?

[ QUOTE ]
The implicit casting of so wide a net of guilt on everything and everyone “American” is nicely done.

[/ QUOTE ]"American" signifies a huge number of things (cultural, scientific, musical, political, etc) but in the case of foreign policy, everything is straightforward : As the hemisphere's unchallenged superpower, the United States has considered Latin America to be its exclusive own backyard. President Monroe, only fifty years after the nation was born, explicitly declared America's intented hegemony over the whole "western hemisphere". What else is there to say except to point out the subsequent actions in History, in full accord to the Monroe Doctrine?

You may wanna wargue that the interference of the U.S. was bueno for Latin America. You can even argue that the interference was preferable to the "alternastives". But you cannot seriously argue that there was no interference -- continuous and quite murderous interference.

If you find such recapitulation of events too "manichean" for your taste, then please point out the missing shades of grey.

[ QUOTE ]
For a very interesting read on Latin America and American Foreign Policy see this article from a Canadian publication: U.S. - Latin American Relations

[/ QUOTE ] I don't find much to disagree with in the article. It recognizes that the "US power over Latin America ... since the 1990’s [underwent] a sharp fall [which] has been followed by a partial recovery". Your article, if anything, highlights, albeit in polite terms, the imbecility of the old conservative notions that informed the aforesaid murderous American policy of outright intereference. The U.S. in the 1960s was seeing communists everywhere, while in reality the movements for self-determination were mainly driven by patriotism or even nationalism (eg Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador). Without doubt, even the socialists were more patriotic than the puppets supported by United Fruit.

Anyway, it's funny that you would link to an article that somberly (and admittedly more at length than my humble post) describes the blowback of Latin American nationalism -- just as I said. And if you think Chavez is an expert in Marxism, you are still living inthe 1960s.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More than 40 Latin American governments were undermined or overthrown in the 20th Century alone.


[/ QUOTE ] All by the USA!

[/ QUOTE ]Not all of them, no. Some were undermined by France. I also read something about Italy but I'll have to get back to you on this.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


More than 40 Latin American governments were undermined or overthrown in the 20th Century alone.

[/ QUOTE ] That is an impressive number, if true. Can you give particulars for all countries. Just the facts please.

[/ QUOTE ] Didn't you click on your own link ?

Here's a sample, concerning a single decade, taken from it:

[ QUOTE ]
Beginning with the US-backed military coup in Brazil in 1964, the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and continuing with a series of CIA-backed military seizures of power in Bolivia (1971), Uruguay (1972/3), Chile (1973), Peru (1975) and Argentina (1976), Washington re-established its power and reversed the legislation and policies which adversely affected its big property holders and hegemony in foreign policy. All the new dictatorships received large-scale funding from the US government, easy access to loans from the World Bank and IMF (thus starting the <u>massive debt cycle</u>) for many dubious ventures in exchange for repressing all nationalist, socialist, democratic and popular opposition.

[/ QUOTE ] Nice huh? But then Canadians are notorious manicheans. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mickey Brausch

[Zeno]

Bantering with you is always fun. If you read the conclusion(s) in the article I posted you will note the shades of grey mentioned. Another shade of grey is that all countries, peoples, groups etc interact in numerous ways for power, wealth, influence, land, resources, etc, amongst themselves and others. It is not an exclusive US exploits Latin American (in the article I posted there is even a smattering of EU and others). There are many shades of grey to all this. And it is not just 'foreigners' or outsiders. This important part of the whole mix is often glossed over. Of course the big shoulders of the US has much influence which will wax and wane over the years depending on many factors. The moon over Maimi is currently on the wane, but don't count greed out - it is a powerful force.

I'm glad you liked the article - it does support your position but in a more calm tone I would like to add. And you are welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think Chavez is an expert in Marxism, you are still living inthe 1960s.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chavez is no Marxist. He is populist and crafty; his anti-American stance is a good policy at present. But he is pragmatic and also a bit of a dunce, especially in finance. At least that is what my engineer friend from Venezuela tells me over the cubicle wall. And by the way, I gave up the 1960s in the 1960s. No past for me; only the future baby.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

I knew of many takeovers and messin' withs. The number 40 seems rather large to me. Seven are mentioned in the article I linked (which I read and enjoyed) as you quoted. That is still far from 40. Seriously, I would like to see a list - I think it would be most instructive and useful for the forum.

Thanks in advance.

-Zeno