That's who you think holds the reins of power when it comes to international affairs huh? As msfe would say: bwahahahahaha
When we attack dictators, the left acts as if the U.S. was the dictatorship. However, they are only playing mind games with themselves because the average person sees right through them, and they hate the average person anyway.
Mossadegh was a dictator huh? Pfft. He was a nationalist, yes, (nothing wrong with that the last time I checked with the US hawks), but he was ELECTED. The Sandanistas were dictators huh? They were elected in a LANDSLIDE! (Iran-Contra scandal ring a bell here?)
they are the American government Statement of Principles June 3, 1997 American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: ⢠we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; ⢠we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; ⢠we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; ⢠we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
How would YOU know, you don't even live here. But I understand, you latin american people are damaged goods, you have had nothing but corrupt dictators and abusive military. That's why you're so skeptic, you think the US is no different. I pity you.
Oh okay Buzzy. Being an American then, would you care to explain to me which Congressmen and Senators idea the Iran-Contra affair was?
Another fallacy. Only an idiot would believe that having a non-isolationist Foreign policy is the same thing as wanting to rule the world.
Political careers were killed and people were indicted because of that scandal. The Reagan administration screwed up there and paid for it. It's not like in Latin America, one government screws up and the next declares amnesty. Here there is some accountability.
Buzz, whether or not careers were ended or what not (btw, Ollie North's doing fine isn't he?) is beside the point. The fact is that there exist power structures within the US government that make it possible for the US to engage in the kind of subversive plots I have pointed to. I agree that it probably would not have been the wishes of the US public to do what was done, but that's the whole point. The wishes of the US public, given the clandestine nature of international affairs, don't count for squat. As I've said, ad nauseam (not just on ET), geopolitical manoeuverings are flogged to Joe Public as "humanitarian" missions, or "liberation", or, the latest favorite, a "war on terror". Who gains from these escapades? It sure isn't Joe Citizen. As for S America, yeah, okay, we're just a pack of fucking idiots. EVeryone is just happy to forget and move on. Get a brain! The passions of the people are IGNITED by what corrupt governments have done. Unfortunately, their power to do anything about situations after they occur is severly hamstrung. So yes, people do eventually move on (not really an "amnesty" though), becuase there's no other choice. And that can certainly be a legitimate criticism. That's why Lula was such a force in Brazil. Hopefully he can follow through on his promises, and not let the power go to his head.
Should we blame the Colombian government for the drug-trafficking cartels? Obviously not, the fact that people with Colombian citizenship are breaking the law, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with Colombia. Now the fact that a former US administration broke the law, that doesn't mean the US as a country did that action. mmmh "power structures", "the US did this the US did that", Alfonso, there is no need to discuss further you're obviously a brainwashed marxist. The day you start thinking your own thoughts you will be less angry, less resented and a happier person.