Carter blasts Bush over Iraq war

[Hometown]

Cannon, You say,

"The government was going to take property away from people and give it to other people."  

Yes, not unlike our imminent domain.

"The government we put into power lasted 4 years until a military coup unseated it. That coup then fought itself for power with general v. general."  

The generals were in our pocket too.  In fact Guatemala is still in our pocket.  Remember all of the CIA's handiwork in Guatemala in the 80s?

"So it is safe to say the United States played a roll...."

Cannon I'm assuming there was some belief behind this statement.  And I have to say you are a little naive and chauvinistic about the role we played and play.  There's not a whole lot you can do to "make nice" about what we've done in Latin America.

Just read off a list of Latin American countries and it is hard to find a country that has not had a troubled relationship with the U.S.  You have conveniently forgotten a lot of history you lived through.  Argentina.  Chile.  Noriega.  The School of the Americas.  The untold story now is our involvement in Columbia's civil war.  Columbia is a real black mark on Clinton's legacy.

Like I say, the rest of the world has recently gotten to see a part of our personality that Latin America was already completely familiar with.  Stabilizing force?  Not if you take your sovereignty and right to self determination seriously.

Patric, I hear you about the woman in OKC.  Oklahoma is short on watchdog groups.  There have been several police shootings in Tulsa recently and I never hear anything from watchdog groups.  I'm inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but I hope the DA's office is taking a critical look and I sure would like to see an independent group of citizens that monitor police shootings and deaths of people in police custody.

[rwarn17588]

Carter's just pissed because Bush Jr. is going to take away his title of Worst President Since World War II.

[mr.jaynes]

And the Contras-a legion of butchers, cutthroats, drug traffickers and thieves. These people fought for freedom? No, they fought for a restoration of the old staus quo (but settled for an election instead). I'm wondering if Mr. Bush is willing to leave well enough alone and allow the government there to find its own way? Part of me hopes that he will, but the other part of me thinks that Mr. Ortega may once again be seen as something of an affront to the powers-that-be in Washington.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Carter's just pissed because Bush Jr. is going to take away his title of Worst President Since World War II.

Ding, ding, ding!  We have a winner! [}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Cannon, You say,

"The government was going to take property away from people and give it to other people."  

Exactly what your beloved Democrats in Congress are planning to do with the new tax bill.  Read it, it will brutalize the middle class they supposedly represent.

The U.S. has a long history of exploiting the natural resources and governments of foreign nations to our own benefit.  You have benefitted from this as have every citizen and illegal resident.  Get over it.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Folks you need some experience and a memory to truly appreciate how absurd our politics were and are.

I can remember Reagan's speeches to the nation about the brave Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan.  We created and armed them.  I learned later that the brave Freedom Fighters were what became Al-Qaeda.

Carter's failures as a president were mostly a matter of public relations blunders and not knowing how little tolerance Americans had for sacrifice.

Reagan told us we could have everything we wanted and it would cost us nothing.  Guess what, Reagan was wrong and the bill is coming due.

Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.

And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by Hometown
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.

And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.

Empty rhetoric? Huh?

Care to explain or are you just running away with HT's imagination?

[Hometown]

Conan, Your assumption is that the spoils of these cold wars are evenly divided.  And you also assume that short term material gains outweigh less mundane considerations like one's honor or creating a world where your descendants will be welcome members of the family of man.  

I would argue that the sole beneficiary of the policies mentioned above have been certain U.S. corporations and their shareholders and that any short term benefit they may have received was not passed on to the American middle or working classes.  Did Del Monte pass on economies they believe they gained by precipitating a devastating civil war?

It looks to me that any loyalty American corporations may have had to American citizens were tossed out the window round about the time of the first oil embargo.  You and I don't get any special consideration.

I mentioned the compromises we Americans have to make and I think it would be more specific to say compromises we have to make with the devil.

I believe in a better United States than you do.  We are more than strong enough to do the right thing.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by Hometown
Reagan's failures have ultimately been much more damaging to our nation.

And what's sad about that is, he was empty rhetoric and misguided action, not realizing that his policies would have repercussions throughout the world, seeing things in terms of lofty ideals rather than the brutal realities.

Empty rhetoric? Huh?

Care to explain or are you just running away with HT's imagination?

Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Conan, Your assumption is that the spoils of these cold wars are evenly divided.  And you also assume that short term material gains outweigh less mundane considerations like one's honor or creating a world where your descendants will be welcome members of the family of man.  

I would argue that the sole beneficiary of the policies mentioned above have been certain U.S. corporations and their shareholders and that any short term benefit they may have received was not passed on to the American middle or working classes.  Did Del Monte pass on economies they believe they gained by precipitating a devastating civil war?

It looks to me that any loyalty American corporations may have had to American citizens were tossed out the window round about the time of the first oil embargo.  You and I don't get any special consideration.

I mentioned the compromises we Americans have to make and I think it would be more specific to say compromises we have to make with the devil.

I believe in a better United States than you do.  We are more than strong enough to do the right thing.

Belief is one thing, it can be based in reality or fantasy.  Seeing is entirely another.  I see a better United States than you do.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.

Many of the same reasons cited for our involvement in Central and South America were similar to why we wound up in SE Asia under previous admins.

We were already directly involved in Latin America directly prior to Reagan's first term due to Carter's human rights initiatives.  There was blood-letting before Reagan took office and after.  The whole decision was whether or not to support right-wing movements or leftist movements backed by larger enemies.

Communism was still a big fear to our government in 1980.  A lot of the foreign policy revolved around keeping communism as far from the U.S. and U.S. interests as the fear was that Moscow was supporting most of the leftist movements.  In case you have forgotten, the USSR and the USA were still bitter enemies when Reagan was sworn into office and strategic placement of missiles with Moscow-friendly gov'ts was more than a minor concern.  

I'm not sure there is a single President since Teddy Roosevelt whom we can't look back at and see a failure somewhere in their foreign policy or something which transpired in their tenure which was good at the time but came back to bite us in the donkey later.  

Sometimes, foreign policy means choosing the lesser of two evils.  That's not perfect, and that certainly isn't ideal, but often those are the only two choices available.  There are still people to this day who say that monster Pinochet saved Chileans from a worse fate.  

Many men who have turned out to be brutal dictators duped their own people and the rest of the world into believing they were saviors or presented themselves as revolutionaries who were going to make a better life for people in their country and to be a good neighbor to their region.  

Two of the dictators you cited were deposed during Regan's tenure in 1986, Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier.

Trying to put this all on the back of Reagan is revisionist history and is wiping clean the slate of questionable decisions of previous Presidential administrations and really doesn't take into account what Reagan walked into.

I'm not being a Reagan apologist, it just annoys me when people ignore previous history and fail to look at the big picture of previous events that lead up to the next cataclysm.

Reagan was nowhere near perfect, I don't believe there will ever be a perfect President.  Just as any other President has done throughout the history of this country, he did what he thought was best at the time.  The rear-view mirror is always much clearer than the crystal ball.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

Mr. Reagan prattled on about "freedom" and "self-determination" for everyone in the world, but in practice, it seems that some in the third world aren't worthy of such a blessing. Look at El Salvador and Guatemala; look at Paraguay (while Stroessner was still in charge) and Chile (under the Pinochet government), and for that matter, Haiti (under Duvalier) and Philippines (under Marcos). Hardly beacons of light in terms of freedom. The track record of supporting these butchers speaks for itself.

Many of the same reasons cited for our involvement in Central and South America were similar to why we wound up in SE Asia under previous admins.

We were already directly involved in Latin America directly prior to Reagan's first term due to Carter's human rights initiatives.  There was blood-letting before Reagan took office and after.  The whole decision was whether or not to support right-wing movements or leftist movements backed by larger enemies.

Communism was still a big fear to our government in 1980.  A lot of the foreign policy revolved around keeping communism as far from the U.S. and U.S. interests as the fear was that Moscow was supporting most of the leftist movements.  In case you have forgotten, the USSR and the USA were still bitter enemies when Reagan was sworn into office and strategic placement of missiles with Moscow-friendly gov'ts was more than a minor concern.  

I'm not sure there is a single President since Teddy Roosevelt whom we can't look back at and see a failure somewhere in their foreign policy or something which transpired in their tenure which was good at the time but came back to bite us in the donkey later.  

Sometimes, foreign policy means choosing the lesser of two evils.  That's not perfect, and that certainly isn't ideal, but often those are the only two choices available.  There are still people to this day who say that monster Pinochet saved Chileans from a worse fate.  

Many men who have turned out to be brutal dictators duped their own people and the rest of the world into believing they were saviors or presented themselves as revolutionaries who were going to make a better life for people in their country and to be a good neighbor to their region.  

Two of the dictators you cited were deposed during Regan's tenure in 1986, Marcos and Baby Doc Duvalier.

Trying to put this all on the back of Reagan is revisionist history and is wiping clean the slate of questionable decisions of previous Presidential administrations and really doesn't take into account what Reagan walked into.

I'm not being a Reagan apologist, it just annoys me when people ignore previous history and fail to look at the big picture of previous events that lead up to the next cataclysm.

Reagan was nowhere near perfect, I don't believe there will ever be a perfect President.  Just as any other President has done throughout the history of this country, he did what he thought was best at the time.  The rear-view mirror is always much clearer than the crystal ball.

Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.

Reagan stepped up pressure on Duvalier to leave office, going so far as threatening to reduce aid to the Haitians.  He convinced Marcos to step down after the questionable elections in 1986.  Sure, there is little doubt that the U.S would have continued to support these two governments had public opinion in those two countries not turned overwhelmingly against their leaders.  In those two actions, there is a good chance much blood-shed went unrealized.  

However, no one can ever count the number of deaths prevented by supporting one faction, only the ones who are killed.

Here's a decent non-partisan take on our penchant for manipulating other govt's.  You seem somewhat less biased than HT, so you might enjoy this.  Careful, it's a long read:

http://www.alternet.org/audits/39416/?page=1

The article I've cited above makes it sound like the Dulles brothers were running the foreign policy game while Ike was out playing golf.  Now Those were two corrupt individuals and they were the ones with the relationship to the fruit and oil companies- both having acted as "counsel" for United Fruit Co and the large oil companies.

Attributed to Woodrow Wilson:

"It is to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world."

-sounds a little like Osama Bin Laden today.

My overall point is, government is a breeding ground for political favors, paybacks, and outright kick-backs for politicians supporting interests of their close friends.  It's not a Dem or Rep issue, but rather an issue of power and influence.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

Of course, I see your point. Evenso, I think that while Carter was more insistent on human rights, it was atrifling inconvenience to Mr. Reagan where these third world right-wing butchers were concerned. As for Duvalier and Marcos, their people overthrew them, it wasn't anything Reagan did.

Reagan stepped up pressure on Duvalier to leave office, going so far as threatening to reduce aid to the Haitians.  He convinced Marcos to step down after the questionable elections in 1986.  Sure, there is little doubt that the U.S would have continued to support these two governments had public opinion in those two countries not turned overwhelmingly against their leaders.  In those two actions, there is a good chance much blood-shed went unrealized.  

However, no one can ever count the number of deaths prevented by supporting one faction, only the ones who are killed.

Here's a decent non-partisan take on our penchant for manipulating other govt's.  You seem somewhat less biased than HT, so you might enjoy this.  Careful, it's a long read:

http://www.alternet.org/audits/39416/?page=1

The article I've cited above makes it sound like the Dulles brothers were running the foreign policy game while Ike was out playing golf.  Now Those were two corrupt individuals and they were the ones with the relationship to the fruit and oil companies- both having acted as "counsel" for United Fruit Co and the large oil companies.

Attributed to Woodrow Wilson:

"It is to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world."

-sounds a little like Osama Bin Laden today.

My overall point is, government is a breeding ground for political favors, paybacks, and outright kick-backs for politicians supporting interests of their close friends.  It's not a Dem or Rep issue, but rather an issue of power and influence.

Duly noted, Conan71. This does make for compelling reading. I do understand where you're coming from on that.

[Conan71]

^^
A President, with as many responsibilities which fall under his belt, has to have absolute trust in his advisors.  A President operates and makes decisions based on summarized information.  In news stories, that is why we often hear the phrase: "The President was briefed by his XXXXXX advisor about..."

No one would physically be able to read as much detailed information in every intelligence report, every piece of legislation, every financial summary, etc.  There are probably thousands of pages of text which come into the White House every day.  If someone within an administration has particular agendas or biases they want to serve, the President will wind up with filtered, summarized information.  According to the account I read about Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers, it sounds as if they totally duped him on justification for Central American foreign policy.

I know some of you are thinking, since I lean to the conservative side, this is leading to absolving Bush II or Reagan of certain responsibilities.  Not at all.  

It's understanding that there are a lot of un-elected officials and un-appointed beaurocrats who wind up influencing things like foreign policy and fiscal policy.  All a leader can do is rely on his trust for an advisor and his gut instinct of what to do in a particular situation.

My wife and I had dinner last night with a friend who worked in a defense think tank in D.C. for a few years.  He said he was exposed to the underbelly of Congress, Congressional aides, and unbelievable arm twisting which happens behind closed doors.

It really doesn't matter which party a politician represents, all that matters is attaining power and keeping it.  That is all accomplished by returning favors to those who put them there in the first place and those who keep them there.  No one in power can claim to have clean hands.  Even with the "reforms" touted by the new Congress, lobbyists are alive and well in D.C.