h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fair points, but to turn the question round: would Pinochet or any of the other right-wingers have lasted long under the kind of pressure the US has put on Cuba? If the US stopped trading/giving concessions to these countries it would be *much* harder for the juntas etc. to survive.

Why did the School of the Americas exist to train South Americans in uses of terrorism, torture, counter-revolutionary tactics etc. Why would USians carry out such dastardly deeds themselves when it's cheaper and less hassle to train some locals to do it.

I can see why it would be annoying to simplify everything by blaming it on the US, but it has been a huge, constant factor in South (and Central) American history for more than a century, and has usually been virulently anti-left-wing. And they're not any nicer than anyone else because they're American.

"Fair points, but to turn the question round: would Pinochet or any of the other right-wingers have lasted long under the kind of pressure the US has put on Cuba? If the US stopped trading/giving concessions to these countries it would be *much* harder for the juntas etc. to survive.

Why did the School of the Americas exist to train South Americans in uses of terrorism, torture, counter-revolutionary tactics etc."

I never said that the USA didn't help the South American far-right, it clearly did (especially under administrations such as Nixon's and Reagan's) what I said was that they were not the root-cause of South America's troubles. Pinochet may well have still carried out his coup against Allende even if he wasn't sure of American support.

"Why would USians carry out such dastardly deeds themselves when it's cheaper and less hassle to train some locals to do it."

That's exactly what the Americans did do. They trained security apparatus for, and often established contacts in, many of the South American dictatorships. My point is, if you want to find someone to blame for what happened in Chile blame Pinochet, if you want to find someone responsible for the dirty-war blame the Argentine junta. Should the Americans have given any aid to these dictatorships? No. Does that mean that ultimate blame lies with them? No. Some does, certainly, but these were deeds carried out by Latin American dictators fighting their own battles. The Americans just happened to have the same overall interests.

<> Zagreb

And what I said was 'although correct,[what you said] misses out one huge factor about *why* this is the case.'


What I inferred from the original post I replied to was that SA's notorious corruption was somehow endemic, and not related to outside influence.

Interesting development:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4188578.stm

What obvious attempted @rse kissing - wonder how Chavez will respond.

az

"What obvious attempted @rse kissing"

I think that's unfair. This seems to me to be American Christians doing what a lot of Muslims have had to do recently - put some sort of distance between themselves and their lunatic fringes.

"wonder how Chavez will respond."

Hopefully he'll initiate some sort of dialogue. Dialogue is what the United States and Venezuela definitely need right now. Chavez is popular and so his socialist reforms plainly are too and the Americans need to accept that. The problem is that Chavez almost seems to relish the fact that he's unpopular with Washington and seems to be more interested in breaking bridges than building them and the whole US attitude to him before and after the foiled coup has hardly helped matters. Eventually, the USA and Venezuela are going to have to learn to co-exist as neighbours. Chavez is going to have to learn to behave like a statesman rather than a tinpot revolutionary and the United States is going to have to learn to respect Venezuela's right to the sovereignty of it's people.

The impression I get with Chavez is that he believes what he reads in the papers a little too much. A demogogue taken in by his own act perhaps?

Venezuela might move to extradite Pat Robertson for "terrorism".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/28/world/main798843.shtml

Not really funny, Clive. More pathetic. Of course Robertson is a stupid loon but demanding he be extradited is just Chavez being bullish and confrontational. If he were more of a statesman he'd demand an apology from the US embassy at most. Robertson isn't a serious terrorist, he's a man who doesn't engage his brain before opening his mouth.

A while back a British journalist wrote in his TV column a suggestion that George W Bush should be assassinated. The ridiculous overreaction was bad enough but imagine if George W Bush himself had demanded his extradition?

Well it amused me.

Yeah but if Bush did ask for the extradition of the journalist, it would give the anti-American lobby more say. People would be burning Nike trainers in front of the US embassy!!!

What is the US government's official reason for not liking Chavez, anyway? As far as I know, he's a democratically elected leader who hasn't been accused of human rights violations, so what's Bush's official reason for hating him? Simply that he's friends with Castro?

Yes.

That and the fact that he is managing to get legislation passed that helps the disadvantaged of his society at the expense of big business.

There was an interesting article by Johann Hari, about this, republished from the Independent, in our local paper. Some of the comments of the Venezuelan elite were well scary! They had backed a coup by the USA, how mad is that?

I'm not sure 'elite' is the best word. 'Rich' may be more appropriate.

Due to the rather...troubled history of South America, I think you'll find that the 'rich' are the 'elite' through most of the continent.

'Elite' still has some vague association with merit or intellect, rather than simply money and the desire to keep it all.

I understand what you are saying, but the rich regard themselves as the elite all over the world.

South America, which has no history of royal families, and therefore no history of aristocracy full stop, the rich became the elite by default. I suspect that it is one of the reasons that the continent is so riddled with corruption and violent right wing politics.

'South America, which has no history of royal families'


a little quibble: 'no history' should probably read 'little history' or 'not a lot of recent history, i.e. 20th century history'. The example of Brazil comes immediately to mind, followed rapidly by Mexico. And then suddenly the pre-Columbian foundations of Latin American societies springs up and I can't help but think 'what is that king doing on the Mexican 50000 peso note?' http://www.banknotes.com/MX93.JPG

I suppose the Inca don't get a mention...

"If the history isn't Christian...then it isn't worth mentioning"