NationStates Jolt Archive

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/081011-US-latin-america-hmed-10p.hmedium.jpg



"If the Soviet Union can aid and abet subversion in our hemisphere, then the United States has a legal right and moral duty to help resist it.
This is not only in our strategic interest; it is morally right."
Ronald Reagan (1884)

"As intepreted by Washington, the imperatives of the Cold War led to recurrent American interference in the internal affairs of Latin American states. One of the most telling features of these interventions was political consistency. Under the leadership of both political parties, Democrats and Republicans, the United States attempted the forceful overthrow of each and every socialist (or allegedly socialist) government in The Americas.

Once decided on a course of action, the United States was usually able to acheive its goals. Only the Cuban invasion of 1961 proved unsuccessful. All the other campaigns, through either covert support for oppostion groups or the overt application of military force, from the Dominican action of 1965 to the Contra wars of the 1980's, led to the ouster of allegedly socialist regimes. Of course they engendered political backlash in Latin America. But by the narrowest of Cold War criteria, interventionism worked. "

That's what my textbook states on American interventionist foreign policy during the Cold War for my class on International Politics of Latin America. While being a bit leftist for my liking, and a bit too biased on Reagan, it is still a good read and argues its points well.

So I ask the question my book states as fact. Was [American] interventionism in Latin America successful?

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Talons-Eagle-America-United-States/dp/0195320484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243439467&sr=8-1

I do think it worked like a charm. Enough actually to desestabilize the region and to assure the US that, continually, several governments like Colombia (Pablo Escobar) and Nicaragua (what was the name of that dictator?) have had them (the US of A) intervene in more than one occasion.

Depends on how you define success. It certainly was successful at curbing Soviet influence on Latin American governments. But it wasn't particularly successful at making the lives of latin americans any safer or better...or their governments any more democratic.

What's the point of touting the benefits of Democracy when we back dictators and military coups? I don't call that 'success'.

was the Soviet Union even involved in South America :tongue:

Except for the simple fact that the USSR barely involved itself in Latin America.

Th ewhole 'the Russkies are invading South America!' thing was a smokescreen for interventioinism that somehow became the popular paradigm.

It was about as successful at curbing Soviet expansionism as this magical rock is at keeping away tigers.

was the Soviet Union even involved in South America :tongue:

It was pre-emptive interventionism. :tongue:

was the Soviet Union even involved in South America :tongue:
Are you serious ? ? ?


Until the Khrushchev period, Latin America was generally regarded as in the United States sphere of influence. The Soviet Union had little interest in importing Latin American raw materials or commodities, and most Latin American governments, traditionally anticommunist, had long resisted the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

A transformation of the Soviet attitude toward Latin America began in 1959 when Fidel Castro overthrew Cuba's long-time dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Castro gradually turned the island into a communist state and developed such close ties with the Soviet Union that Cuba was, by 1961, considered by the Soviet Union as its first "fraternal party state" in the Western Hemisphere.

Castro initially advocated armed revolutionary struggle in Latin America. However, after armed struggle failed to topple the government of Venezuela in 1965, the Soviet leadership stressed the "peaceful road to socialism." This path involved cooperation between communist and leftist movements in working for peaceful change and electoral victories. The "peaceful road" apparently bore fruit in 1970 with the election of Salvador Allende Gossens, the candidate of the leftist Popular Unity coalition, as president of Chile. Despite Allende's advocacy of close ties with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was slow in providing economic assistance essential to the survival of the regime, and in the midst of economic collapse Allende died in a bloody coup in 1973. His ouster resulted in a partial renewal of Soviet support for Castro's position that armed force is necessary for the transition to communism. Brezhnev himself conceded at the 1976 Twenty-Fifth Party Congress that a "revolution must know how to defend itself." The Soviet Union funneled weaponry and economic assistance through Cuba to various insurgent groups and leftist governments in Latin America. The Soviet Union used Cuba as a conduit for military, economic, and technical assistance to Grenada from 1979 to 1983. The United States government claimed that guerrillas operating in El Salvador received extensive assistance from Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, and Libya and that Nicaragua and Cuba funneled Soviet and East European matériel to the Salvadoran guerrillas.

Direct Soviet activities in South America have mostly involved diplomacy, trade, culture, and propaganda activities. Peru was the only South American state to purchase sizable quantities of military weaponry from the Soviet Union, and for many years about 125 Soviet military advisers were stationed there. Peru's military relationship with the Soviet Union began in 1968, when General Juan Velasco Alvarado seized power. In February 1969, Peru established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, and one month after Allende's ouster in Chile in September 1973, the first Soviet weapons arrived in Peru. Major transfers occurred after 1976, when Peru received fighter-bombers, helicopters, jet fighters, surfaceto -air missiles, and other relatively sophisticated weaponry. The Soviet Union had also been one of Peru's major trade partners, with some Peruvian exports being used to pay off Peruvian debt to the Soviet Union. Argentina in the 1980s was the Soviet Union's second largest trading partner among the noncommunist developing countries (India was the largest). In turn, the Soviet Union was a major importer of Argentine grain, meat, and wool.

Some Western analysts have posited a differentiated Soviet policy toward Latin America, which stresses military and subversive activities in Central America and diplomatic and economic (stateto -state) relations in South American. The range of instruments of influence used in Central America and South America, while varying in their mix over time, nevertheless indicated that all instruments, including support for subversive groups and arms shipments to amenable governments, had been used in Central America and South America in response to available opportunities, indicating shifting emphases but a basically undifferentiated policy toward Latin America. The main policy goal in Soviet relations with Latin America was to decrease United States influence in the region by encouraging the countries of the region either to develop close ties to the Soviet Union or to adopt a nonaligned, "anti-imperialist" foreign policy. The Soviet Union was cautious in pursuing this goal, seeking to maintain a low public profile in its relations, and was hesitant to devote major economic or military resources to countries in the region, with the exception of Cuba. As part of the reorientation of Soviet Third World policy toward better relations with Western-oriented Third World states, Gorbachev emphasized the establishment of better trade and political relations with several Latin American states. Evidence of this new emphasis was Gorbachev's visit to Cuba in April 1989 and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze's visits to Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay in 1986-87. While in Cuba, Gorbachev and Castro signed a friendship and cooperation treaty, indicating continued Soviet support to Cuba.
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12696.html

Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't.

I think intervention did more harm than good. It is not good for the United States to try to police the world when we have problems of our own at home.

I think intervention did more harm than good. It is not good for the United States to try to police the world when we have problems of our own at home.

That's what your Manifest Destiny has done to you.

That's what your Manifest Destiny has done to you.

Manifest Destiny was good for the United States. We went from 13 little colonies to one of the world's largest countries. Also, Manifest Destiny was good for the areas that became incorporated into the United States. Compare the former-Mexican regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah etc etc today, with the actual Mexican regions of today, and one can easily see that that land was better off under American control.

Cuba would have been better off had we just incorporated it as a full state of the union (and beleive me, there was a large amount of support for this idea) after we liberated it from Spain. It wouldn't be the poor, authoritarian, starving shithole it is now.

Manifest Destiny was good for the United States. We went from 13 little colonies to one of the world's largest countries. Also, Manifest Destiny was good for the areas that became incorporated into the United States. Compare the former-Mexican regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah etc etc today, with the actual Mexican regions of today, and one can easily see that that land was better off under American control.

Cuba would have been better off had we just incorporated it as a full state of the union (and beleive me, there was a large amount of support for this idea) after we liberated it from Spain. It wouldn't be the poor, authoritarian, starving shithole it is now.

Yes indeed, Cuba would lose it's fine working health care system, it would be replaced with something, uhm different.

If Cuba wasn't boycotted on several issues then it's likely that it was a better country than today.

Are you serious ? ? ?

Cuba is in the Caribbean...

from your own source:

The Soviet Union was cautious in pursuing this goal, seeking to maintain a low public profile in its relations, and was hesitant to devote major economic or military resources to countries in the region, with the exception of Cuba.

Manifest Destiny was good for the United States. We went from 13 little colonies to one of the world's largest countries. Also, Manifest Destiny was good for the areas that became incorporated into the United States. Compare the former-Mexican regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah etc etc today, with the actual Mexican regions of today, and one can easily see that that land was better off under American control.

yes lets compare resource rich states to poor Mexican states

Cuba would have been better off had we just incorporated it as a full state of the union (and beleive me, there was a large amount of support for this idea) after we liberated it from Spain. It wouldn't be the poor, authoritarian, starving shithole it is now.

but then where will the 9/11 firefighters get medical treatment?!

That's what your Manifest Destiny has done to you.

Now I vehemently disagree with you on manifest destiny being bad. We won every bit of land for our country fair and square.

We rebelled and won independence from Great Britain, purchased land from France, got ceded some land from Spain and eventually Great Britain, won land from Mexico through conquest, and bought Alaska from Russia and acquired Hawaii.

Sure, the native americans got screwed over, but I sure as hell am not going to move back to Europe to a culture I am not familiar with and don't appreciate when I was born and raised in the United States of America and consider myself American.

Manifest Destiny was good for the United States. We went from 13 little colonies to one of the world's largest countries. Also, Manifest Destiny was good for the areas that became incorporated into the United States. Compare the former-Mexican regions of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah etc etc today, with the actual Mexican regions of today, and one can easily see that that land was better off under American control.

Cuba would have been better off had we just incorporated it as a full state of the union (and beleive me, there was a large amount of support for this idea) after we liberated it from Spain. It wouldn't be the poor, authoritarian, starving shithole it is now.

Your total disregard for what a country think its beneficial, chosen by its inhabitants. is evident, TAI.

As for Manifest Destiny, I used it according to what 2 of your presidents said it meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Later_usage
Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the role of the United States in the New World was defined, in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as being an "international police power" to secure American interests in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt's corollary contained an explicit rejection of territorial expansion. In the past, Manifest Destiny had been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, but now expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a means of upholding the doctrine.

Woodrow Wilson:
...I think we all realize that the day has come when Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail.

That up there is mightly presumptious of your country.

More so:
Wilson's version of Manifest Destiny was a rejection of expansionism and an endorsement (in principle) of self-determination, emphasizing that the United States had a mission to be a world leader for the cause of democracy.

Now to answer your silly textbook; no, your policies have been quite harmful for Latin America.

Yes indeed, Cuba would lose it's fine working health care system, it would be replaced with something, uhm different.
Say what you wish, but the standard of living in America is extremely higher than in Cuba. Healthcare may be a relatively good point in Cuba, but that's like saying that, because in the Soviet Union you had automatic housing, that the Soviet Union was a better place to live in than America . . . :rolleyes:
If Cuba wasn't boycotted on several issues then it's likely that it was a better country than today.
Please. First of all, there has never been even one politically marxist command-economy that has generated an economically stable, politically free nation with a high standard of living for its citizens.
Is it more likely that it's America's fault that the standard of living in Cuba sucks, or that that system, which has failed in producing a modern society with a high standard of living ever single time it has come into existence, is flawed?

Oh, interventions in Latin America. The Atlantian Isles wants to defend them.
Okay, go ahead. Take each and every one of these and prove to me how they made the world, and Latin America, and the countries involved better places:

1846
The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.

1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.

1855
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.

He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.

"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker

1856
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.

1898
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

1903
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.

1903
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.

1904
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.

1905
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz crush a strike in Sonora.

1905
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.

1906
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.

1907
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.

1908
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.

1909
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.

1910
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.

1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.

1912
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.

1912
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.

1914
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.

1915
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.

"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation

1916
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.

! 1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.

"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin

1917
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.

1917
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.

1918
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.

1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.

1925
U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.

1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.

"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --NYT, 1928

1929
U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds

1930
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic.

1932
The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martínez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).

! 1933
President Roosevelt announces the Good Neighbor policy.

1933
Marines finally leave Nicaragua, unable to suppress the guerrilla warfare of General Augusto César Sandino. Anastasio Somoza García becomes the first Nicaraguan commander of the National Guard.

"The Nicaraguans are better fighters than the Haitians, being of Indian blood, and as warriors similar to the aborigines who resisted the advance of civilization in this country." --NYT correspondent Harold Denny

1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.

! 1934
Platt Amendment repealed.

1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.

! 1936
U.S. relinquishes rights to unilateral intervention in Panama.

1941
Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia deposes Panamanian president Arias in a military coup-- first clearing it with the U.S. Ambassador.

It was "a great relief to us, because Arias had been very troublesome and very pro-Nazi." --Secretary of War Henry Stimson

1943
The editor of the Honduran opposition paper El Cronista is summoned to the U.S. embassy and told that criticism of the dictator Tiburcio Carías Andino is damaging to the war effort. Shortly afterward, the paper is shut down by the government.

1944
The dictator Maximiliano Hernández Martínez of El Salvador is ousted by a revolution; the interim government is overthrown five months later by the dictator's former chief of police. The U.S.'s immediate recognition of the new dictator does much to tarnish Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in the eyes of Latin Americans.

1946
U.S. Army School of the Americas opens in Panama as a hemisphere-wide military academy. Its linchpin is the doctrine of National Security, by which the chief threat to a nation is internal subversion; this will be the guiding principle behind dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Central America, and elsewhere.

1948
José Figueres Ferrer wins a short civil war to become President of Costa Rica. Figueres is supported by the U.S., which has informed San José that its forces in the Panama Canal are ready to come to the capital to end "communist control" of Costa Rica.

1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.

Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life

The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.

"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon

1957
Eisenhower establishes Office of Public Safety to train Latin American police forces.

! 1959
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba. Several months earlier he had undertaken a triumphal tour through the U.S., which included a CIA briefing on the Red menace.

"Castro's continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." --Time, of Castro's warnings of an imminent U.S. invasion

1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.

1960
The Canal Zone becomes the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency training.

1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.

"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup

1960
Guatemalan officers attempt to overthrow the regime of Presidente Fuentes; Eisenhower stations warships and 2000 Marines offshore while Fuentes puts down the revolt. [Another source says that the U.S. provided air support for Fuentes.]

1960s
U.S. Green Berets train Guatemalan army in counterinsurgency techniques. Guatemalan efforts against its insurgents include aerial bombing, scorched-earth assaults on towns suspected of aiding the rebels, and death squads, which killed 20,000 people between 1966 and 1976. U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that it was at his instigation that "the technique of counter-terror had been implemented by the army."

"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio

1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Bahía de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.

1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.

1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep João Goulart from achieving control of Congress.

1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.

1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan José Arévalo was favored to win.

"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964

1964
João Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.

! 1964
The free market in Nicaragua:

The Somoza family controls "about one-tenth of the cultivable land in Nicaragua, and just about everything else worth owning, the country's only airline, one television station, a newspaper, a cement plant, textile mill, several sugar refineries, half-a-dozen breweries and distilleries, and a Mercedes-Benz agency." --Life World Library

1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later. Now why would he say that?

1966
U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.

"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program

1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.

1968
Gen. José Alberto Medrano, who is on the payroll of the CIA, organizes the ORDEN paramilitary force, considered the precursor of El Salvador's death squads.

! 1970
In this year (just as an example), U.S. investments in Latin America earn $1.3 billion; while new investments total $302 million.

1970
Salvador Allende Gossens elected in Chile. Suspends foreign loans, nationalizes foreign companies. For the phone system, pays ITT the company's minimized valuation for tax purposes. The CIA provides covert financial support for Allende's opponents, both during and after his election.

1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist José Napoleón Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)

1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.

1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.

1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.

! 1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.

! 1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.

"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan

1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.

"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan

1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.

1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.

1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.

1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.

1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.

1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.

1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.

1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.

1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.

1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.

1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.




Get to work TAI.

Latin America, like sub-Saharan Africa, had been a relatively low priority in Soviet foreign policy,...Latin America was generally regarded as in the United States sphere of influence. The Soviet Union had little interest in importing Latin American raw materials or commodities, and most Latin American governments, traditionally anticommunist, had long resisted the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

Like I said, Soviet intervention in Latin America was minimal.

A transformation of the Soviet attitude toward Latin America began in 1959 when Fidel Castro overthrew Cuba's long-time dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Castro gradually turned the island into a communist state and developed such close ties with the Soviet Union that Cuba was, by 1961, considered by the Soviet Union as its first "fraternal party state" in the Western Hemisphere.

This was after Cuba appealed for aid to the US, and after the US had decided to enact the embargo. It's no wonder Cuba ended up having better relations with the Soviets than the US.

.... Despite Allende's advocacy of close ties with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was slow in providing economic assistance essential to the survival of the regime...

Like I said, Soviet intervention in Latin America was minimal. And like the case with Cuba, was only in response to far greater intervention by the US.

The Soviet Union funneled weaponry and economic assistance through Cuba to various insurgent groups and leftist governments in Latin America. The Soviet Union used Cuba as a conduit for military, economic, and technical assistance to Grenada from 1979 to 1983.

I would like a source showing the amount of support.

The United States government claimed that guerrillas operating in El Salvador received extensive assistance from Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, and Libya and that Nicaragua and Cuba funneled Soviet and East European matériel to the Salvadoran guerrillas.

The United States government claims lots of things for which there is no evidence, especially when it comes to rationalising military intervention. I need remind no one here of the lack of WMDs or connection to Al-Qaeda in Iraq

...Peru was the only South American state to purchase sizable quantities of military weaponry from the Soviet Union, and for many years about 125 Soviet military advisers were stationed there.....The Soviet Union had also been one of Peru's major trade partners, with some Peruvian exports being used to pay off Peruvian debt to the Soviet Union. Argentina in the 1980s was the Soviet Union's second largest trading partner among the noncommunist developing countries (India was the largest). In turn, the Soviet Union was a major importer of Argentine grain, meat, and wool.

Is trade considered intervention now? Is having military personnel in the country intervention? If so, I wonder how much USian trade and military personnel have gown south of the Rio Grande?

...The Soviet Union was cautious in pursuing this goal, seeking to maintain a low public profile in its relations, and was hesitant to devote major economic or military resources to countries in the region....

Like I said, Soviet intervention in Latin America was minimal.

Now I vehemently disagree with you on manifest destiny being bad. We won every bit of land for our country fair and square.

We rebelled and won independence from Great Britain, purchased land from France, got ceded some land from Spain and eventually Great Britain, won land from Mexico through conquest, and bought Alaska from Russia and acquired Hawaii.

Sure, the native americans got screwed over, but I sure as hell am not going to move back to Europe to a culture I am not familiar with and don't appreciate when I was born and raised in the United States of America and consider myself American.

There's a big difference between being grateful for what you have and proud of your nation's accomplishments and sugar-coating the atrocities of the past because the sense of arrogance and entitlement that accompanies that revision of history is how atrocities of the future happen.

Say what you wish, but the standard of living in America is extremely higher than in Cuba. Healthcare may be a relatively good point in Cuba, but that's like saying that, because in the Soviet Union you had automatic housing, that the Soviet Union was a better place to live in than America . . . :rolleyes:

Roll eyes don't befit you, boy. HK has a point. And even more, Cuba's advancements in medicine can't be denied. Read a bit more on the country and not whatever your elitist professors feed you.

Please. First of all, there has never been even one politically marxist command-economy that has generated an economically stable, politically free nation with a high standard of living for its citizens.

Be that as it may, it gives the US no right to interfere with Cuba. Cubans aren't asking you to.

Is it more likely that it's America's fault that the standard of living in Cuba sucks, or that that system, which has failed in producing a modern society with a high standard of living ever single time it has come into existence, is flawed?

Once again, that's Cuba's reality and its people will work with it. The US has no right in trying to stick its nose there.

Cuba is in the Caribbean...

from your own source:




yes lets compare resource rich states to poor Mexican states



but then where will the 9/11 firefighters get medical treatment?!

Like I said, Soviet intervention in Latin America was minimal.
No, very unlike what you said. Quoting out of context fails here, because, while at the beginning Latin-America was seen by the Soviet's as America's sphere of influence, the whole point of that source was to show the eventual change of policy, and the covert and overt push of Soviet influence throughout Latin-America, as the Cold War dragged on.

Your total disregard for what a country think its beneficial, chosen by its inhabitants. is evident, TAI.

As for Manifest Destiny, I used it according to what 2 of your presidents said it meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Later_usage


Woodrow Wilson:


That up there is mightly presumptious of your country.

More so:


Now to answer your silly textbook; no, your policies have been quite harmful for Latin America.
You are confusing American Exceptionalism with Manifest Destino. American Exceptionalism is when we beleive to have a duty to promote freedom, and liberal-democracy, while manifest destiny was that we beleived we had a right to this country, from the atlantic to the pacific and was used for territorial expansion.

Roll eyes don't befit you, boy. HK has a point. And even more, Cuba's advancements in medicine can't be denied. Read a bit more on the country and not whatever your elitist professors feed you.
I didn't deny that that Cuba has made some achievments in medicine, I denied that it makes Cuba a good society. In comparison, the Soviet Union made many developments into science and even got into space, that doesn't mean it was a good society and the people lived like they were in a prison. Same as in Cuba.



Be that as it may, it gives the US no right to interfere with Cuba. Cubans aren't asking you to.
Well, some were. What about all the Cubans who left and were supportive of the Bay of Pigs? Hell, the ones who contributed to the Bay of Pigs?

Once again, that's Cuba's reality and its people will work with it. The US has no right in trying to stick its nose there.
Um, how exactly can 'the people' work with it when they are denied the freedom of expression by their totalitarian government to do so?

No, very unlike what you said. Quoting out of context fails here, because, while at the beginning Latin-America was seen by the Soviet's as America's sphere of influence, the whole point of that source was to show the eventual change of policy, and the covert and overt push of Soviet influence throughout Latin-America, as the Cold War dragged on.

Actually, I looked at the whole encyclopedia entry you linked to, which is obvious from looking at my post. I specifically looked at the context, in other words. For you to then accuse me of ignoring context seems a little foolish.

Soviet policy did change during the Cold War, however, that does not indicate that Soviet intervention in Latin America was at such a high level that it merited reaction by the USian governments at any time during the Cold War.

Soviet policy did change during the Cold War, however, that does not indicate that Soviet intervention in Latin America was at such a high level that it merited reaction by the USian governments at any time during the Cold War.
The 'level' of Soviet intervention in Latin-America during the Cold War is subjective, and up to debate, but the fact it that they did intervene throughout the Cold War, which was my point against Call to Power's post: "Was the Soviet Union even involved in South America"

No, very unlike what you said. Quoting out of context fails here, because, while at the beginning Latin-America was seen by the Soviet's as America's sphere of influence, the whole point of that source was to show the eventual change of policy, and the covert and overt push of Soviet influence throughout Latin-America, as the Cold War dragged on.

of course what I'm getting as is their is no evidence of the Soviet Union acted any differently to South America than anywhere else in the world and as such the case that the Soviet Union was actively attempting to overthrow nations on Americas doorstep is folly

course the US government would see it that way which is why the answer would more likely involve US paranoia and the complete misunderstanding of the two superpowers plagued the cold war

of course what I'm getting as is their is no evidence of the Soviet Union acted any differently to South America than anywhere else in the world
Um, partially because the Soviet Union acted that way just about everywhere else in the world as well???:p

You are confusing American Exceptionalism with Manifest Destino. American Exceptionalism is when we beleive to have a duty to promote freedom, and liberal-democracy, while manifest destiny was that we beleived we had a right to this country, from the atlantic to the pacific and was used for territorial expansion.

Nope, I am not confusing the terms. Wiki explains it quite well, re-read what I quoted.

Um, partially because the Soviet Union acted that way just about everywhere else in the world as well???:p

so not really bothering at all beyond securing its own interest and selling weapons to everything possible?

Nope, I am not confusing the terms. Wiki explains it quite well, re-read what I quoted.
Did:

After the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth, the phrase Manifest Destiny declined in usage, as territorial expansion ceased to be promoted as being a part of America's "destiny." Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the role of the United States in the New World was defined, in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as being an "international police power" to secure American interests in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt's corollary contained an explicit rejection of territorial expansion. In the past, Manifest Destiny had been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, but now expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a means of upholding the doctrine.

Interventionism was part of Roosevelt's corollary, not Manifest Destiny.

Today, in standard scholarly usage, Manifest Destiny describes a past era in American history, particularly the 1840s.

so not really bothering at all beyond securing its own interest and selling weapons to everything possible?
The Soviet Union didn't bother anything at all globally throughout its history? ? ?

The Soviet Union didn't bother anything at all globally throughout its history? ? ?

more the Soviet Union didn't care and was more interested in its own gain case in point Eastern Europe

Interventionism was part of Roosevelt's corollary

How impressive that he was able to intervene in South America not only decades before he became president, but before he was born.

Quite a good trick!

How impressive that he was able to intervene in South America not only decades before he became president, but before he was born.

Quite a good trick!

I've done it. It's not that hard. You know those Nazca Line Drawings? That was me. *nod*

more the Soviet Union didn't care and was more interested in its own gain case in point Eastern Europe
What world are you living in?

What about Afghanistan? Cuba? Angola? Korea? Vietnam? Ethiopia? And that's just off the top of my head.

How impressive that he was able to intervene in South America not only decades before he became president, but before he was born.

Quite a good trick!
Um, what? Where did I say that?

Um, what? Where did I say that?

You said that Interventionism was part of Roosevelt's corollary, not manifest destiny. Well, Interventionism began long before Roosevelt.

So you merely implied it - it is the logical extension of your increasingly less coherent claims.

And I see you're responding to this post because you can get away with some smug 7-word reply, while steadfastly ignoring this (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14818938&postcount=17) one (because you can't).

The 'level' of Soviet intervention in Latin-America during the Cold War is subjective, and up to debate, but the fact it that they did intervene throughout the Cold War, which was my point against Call to Power's post: "Was the Soviet Union even involved in South America"

Think about it from a timeline perspective and you'll see why the level of Soviet intervention is important.

If you can point to a large Soviet intervention prior to a USian intervention, which then lost power or was otherwise thwarted by said USian intervention, then you can say that the USian intervention was successful. Did this happen? Not as far as I can tell. It seems that Cuba and Chile are both examples of Soviet involvement after, perhaps in response to, USian intervention.

Now, if you are measuring success by number of socialist governments overthrown (democratically elected or otherwise) and completely ignore the Cold War aspect of it, then the USian governments of the time can boast a sweet success rate indeed. Whether or not this was good for Latin America or even the USA is another question.

If you are defining success by the defeat of socialism in the western hemisphere, then it may or may not be, depending on how socialist you believe the various governments of Latin America are.

What world are you living in?

one where a bitching black summer jacket can be ruined by cat hair :(

What about Afghanistan? Cuba? Angola? Korea? Vietnam? Ethiopia? And that's just off the top of my head.

there to do with with the ebs and flow of the cold war in for example the Cuban Missile crisis as a response to US missiles and such

Trotsky died early on and Stalin was made King after all :wink:

Reality has a well known anti-Reagan bias.

It depends. We curbed the Communist Influence, but at what cost? Destabilization of most of the Region?

Depends on what you think would have been worse in the long run.

Say what you wish, but the standard of living in America is extremely higher than in Cuba. Healthcare may be a relatively good point in Cuba, but that's like saying that, because in the Soviet Union you had automatic housing, that the Soviet Union was a better place to live in than America . . . :rolleyes:

Please. First of all, there has never been even one politically marxist command-economy that has generated an economically stable, politically free nation with a high standard of living for its citizens.
Is it more likely that it's America's fault that the standard of living in Cuba sucks, or that that system, which has failed in producing a modern society with a high standard of living ever single time it has come into existence, is flawed?

It depends what you call standard of living. For having airco and more McDonalds, I would prefer USA. But there are other figures as well:

USA

Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 78.11 years

Cuba

Death rate: 7.19 deaths/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate: 5.82 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.45 years

These figures show something. If you keep in mind that Cuba is a kind of third world country then they aren't doing bad at all.

It depends what you call standard of living. For having airco and more McDonalds, I would prefer USA. But there are other figures as well:

USA

Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 78.11 years

Cuba

Death rate: 7.19 deaths/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate: 5.82 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.45 years

These figures show something. If you keep in mind that Cuba is a kind of third world country then they aren't doing bad at all.

^This.

There are a lot of Americans (not all of them, mind you, I won't make generalizations) that need to get it through their skulls that just because their government prattles that Cuba's in a bad condition, doesn't mean that this is true. Cuba is in such a bad condition because of the very embargo the American government put on it 40 years ago or more.

Cuba is in such a bad condition because of the very embargo the American government put on it 40 years ago or more.

The embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from pursuing other trading partners. Why doesn't Cuba just trade with other nations? I blame their problems more on their command economy than just one single trading embargo.

The embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from pursuing other trading partners. Why doesn't Cuba just trade with other nations?

How many other consuming big markets are nearby?

It's easier and cheaper for American tourists to go to Cuba then for Europeans and Asians.

And exporting stuff to a country nearby is usually more interesting then sending the goods to the other side of the globe.

The embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from pursuing other trading partners. Why doesn't Cuba just trade with other nations?

They do. They trade with the Netherlands and Canada, among others. But we can't deny that the US is a huge potential market that, the so-called conservatives who support the embargo have a surprising tendency to be opposed to.

They do. They trade with the Netherlands and Canada, among others. But we can't deny that the US is a huge potential market that, the so-called conservatives who support the embargo have a surprising tendency to be opposed to.

Population of Canada: 33,487,208
The Netherlands: 16,715,999

And USA... : 307,212,123

So they could sell 6x times more to USA then to Canada & The Netherlands combined. And probably more due its geographical location.

the so-called conservatives who support the embargo have a surprising tendency to be opposed to.

But it's not surprising that they support the embargo because it is advocated by the Cuban American lobby whose votes are critical in Florida. So politicians not wanting to risk losing an election in Florida tend to adopt pro-embargo views.

But it's not surprising that they support the embargo because it is advocated by the Cuban American lobby whose votes are critical in Florida. So politicians not wanting to risk losing an election in Florida tend to adopt pro-embargo views.

Which is why Obama is slowly changing the policy, as recent surveys show the majority of Cuban Americans in Florida support ending the embargo.

The embargo doesn't prevent Cuba from pursuing other trading partners. Why doesn't Cuba just trade with other nations? I blame their problems more on their command economy than just one single trading embargo.

Because the US sanctions those nations that trade with Cuba, especially those who also trade with the US. Not that some countries care, they trade with Cuba regardless, but that's why.

Because the US sanctions those nations that trade with Cuba, especially those who also trade with the US. Not that some countries care, they trade with Cuba regardless, but that's why.

There's also an impression working.

Some friend said one year ago, the following

He: "I would like to go to Cuba, but I can't"
Me: "Why?"
He: "Well, I want to visit America once too and I can't enter when I visited Cuba earlier"

I think it is nonsense, but it is some feeling that's alive among people. For false reasons they delete 'Cuba' from their bucket list.

But it's not surprising that they support the embargo because it is advocated by the Cuban American lobby whose votes are critical in Florida. So politicians not wanting to risk losing an election in Florida tend to adopt pro-embargo views.

...in Florida. This is US policy we're talking about, not Florida policy.

There's also an impression working.

Some friend said one year ago, the following

He: "I would like to go to Cuba, but I can't"
Me: "Why?"
He: "Well, I want to visit America once too and I can't enter when I visited Cuba earlier"

I think it is nonsense, but it is some feeling that's alive among people. For false reasons they delete 'Cuba' from their bucket list.

Well, if memory serves correctly, you can't go straight to the US from Cuba, or vice-versa. Maybe he meant that?

There's also an impression working.

Some friend said one year ago, the following

He: "I would like to go to Cuba, but I can't"
Me: "Why?"
He: "Well, I want to visit America once too and I can't enter when I visited Cuba earlier"

I think it is nonsense, but it is some feeling that's alive among people. For false reasons they delete 'Cuba' from their bucket list.

This used to be true, but I'm told that if you ask, you can get the Cuban gov't to stamp a piece of paper and paperclip it to your passport instead of stamping the passport itself.

Then, before entering the US, you can remove the piece of paper.

Well, if memory serves correctly, you can't go straight to the US from Cuba, or vice-versa. Maybe he meant that?

No no. Just later in years. :)

This used to be true, but I'm told that if you ask, you can get the Cuban gov't to stamp a piece of paper and paperclip it to your passport instead of stamping the passport itself.

Then, before entering the US, you can remove the piece of paper.

Amazing.

...in Florida. This is US policy we're talking about, not Florida policy.

Florida is a key battleground state in national general elections so Florida does influence the United States government's policy. Particularly if that candidate was elected by a narrow margin in the electoral college and won that state like George W. Bush did.

There's also an impression working.

Some friend said one year ago, the following

He: "I would like to go to Cuba, but I can't"
Me: "Why?"
He: "Well, I want to visit America once too and I can't enter when I visited Cuba earlier"

I think it is nonsense, but it is some feeling that's alive among people. For false reasons they delete 'Cuba' from their bucket list.

All he needs to do is not stamp his passport. He can ask customs in CUba for this. I was in Cuba a few years ago and they didn't stamp my passport. No harm done. Oh, and he needs to go to Cuba through the Dominican Republic or Haiti.

Florida is a key battleground state in national general elections so Florida does influence the United States government's policy.

That might be true, but that doesn't mean that appealing to whatever people (or politicians) in Florida want is the cause of US foreign policy. Unless there is some sort of Florida conspiracy controlling the US. ;)

Amazing.

Very accommodating lot, the Cubans.

That might be true, but that doesn't mean that appealing to whatever people (or politicians) in Florida want is the cause of US foreign policy. Unless there is some sort of Florida conspiracy controlling the US. ;)

Shh!

All he needs to do is not stamp his passport. He can ask customs in CUba for this. I was in Cuba a few years ago and they didn't stamp my passport. No harm done. Oh, and he needs to go to Cuba through the Dominican Republic or Haiti.

Tsuki, I understand. But still the feeling is alive, even before asking around they already say 'no, won't do'. And then there's a category of people who don't like workarounds or still do not trust it.

IMHO, the boycot did damage the country a lot and still does.

The same is working for companies. I can imagine that many companies doing business with USA are playing safe when they have an opportunity in or with Cuba.

Tsuki, I understand. But still the feeling is alive, even before asking around they already say 'no, won't do'. And then there's a category of people who don't like workarounds or still do not trust it.

IMHO, the boycot did damage the country a lot and still does.

Yes, the harm has been done already. That's why I'm also hopeful since Obama spoke of lifting it. I hope he does. It's been enough.

The same is working for companies. I can imagine that many companies doing business with USA are playing safe when they have an opportunity in or with Cuba.

Yes, they prefer to stay out. But it's just unfair. The embargo has lasted too long.

Yes, the harm has been done already. That's why I'm also hopeful since Obama spoke of lifting it. I hope he does. It's been enough.



Yes, they prefer to stay out. But it's just unfair. The embargo has lasted too long.

Well, after all they survived. If you compare Cuba with similar countries in the region then they did an excellent job.

I hope too that the ban is lifted soon. It will be better for all. It's so silly and almost incomprehensible that these kind of politics is still going on in 2009.

It depends what you call standard of living. For having airco and more McDonalds, I would prefer USA.
This is getting tiring. Do you really refuse to deny the shithole Cuba is? Many, many peopledie every year fleeing Cuba.




These figures show something.
You want to talk about figures? Let's talk about figures.

0 - Number of non state-propoganda media outlets allowed.

0 - Number of rival political parties allowed.

0 - Number of copies of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights one may be allowed to have.

0 - Number of institutions one can attend without getting an 'education' that equals to a brainwashing in Marxism by the state.

0 - Number of courts free from political interference.

0 - Number of Cubans legally allowed to leave the island (does not include offical government members or individuals granted access to leave by the state).

0 - Number of people who can own their own land.

0- Number of investments made without going through the state.

$16.70 - How much money a Cuban makes per month.

61st - Where Cuba ranks for corruption, out of 179.

72.6% - Percentage of GDP that was government spending.

220 - Number of Political Prisoners being held by the Communist government.

Prisoner sentence for 'illegally' killing a cow - Longer than killing a human.

Amount of Human Rights violations in Cuba - "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[90] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law"."


So you'll excuse me if I tell you to get a reality check before seriously comparing the standard of living and human development in the US with that of Cuba.


If you keep in mind that Cuba is a kind of third world country then they aren't doing bad at all.
Except Cuba is a miserable place to live where extreme poverty, inefficiency, government domination, brainwashing, cencorship and illegal imprisonment all catagorize day to day life.

This is getting tiring. Do you really refuse to deny the shithole Cuba is? Many, many peopledie every year fleeing Cuba.
...


Not that many. The average death toll for Cuba is still lower as in Usa.

Cuba is not a shithole, it's rather a beautiful country.

Not that many. The average death toll for Cuba is still lower as in Usa.
Now I know you're just an anti-American troll. You ignored all the figures and facts that showed the actual reality of the situation.

This is getting tiring. Do you really refuse to deny the shithole Cuba is? Many, many peopledie every year fleeing Cuba.





You want to talk about figures? Let's talk about figures.

0 - Number of non state-propoganda media outlets allowed.

0 - Number of rival political parties allowed.

0 - Number of copies of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights one may be allowed to have.

0 - Number of institutions one can attend without getting an 'education' that equals to a brainwashing in Marxism by the state.

0 - Number of courts free from political interference.

0 - Number of Cubans legally allowed to leave the island (does not include offical government members or individuals granted access to leave by the state).

0 - Number of people who can own their own land.

0- Number of investments made without going through the state.

$16.70 - How much money a Cuban makes per month.

61st - Where Cuba ranks for corruption, out of 179.

72.6% - Percentage of GDP that was government spending.

220 - Number of Political Prisoners being held by the Communist government.

Prisoner sentence for 'illegally' killing a cow - Longer than killing a human.

Amount of Human Rights violations in Cuba - "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[90] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law"."


So you'll excuse me if I tell you to get a reality check before seriously comparing the standard of living and human development in the US with that of Cuba.


Death rates and infant mortality rates are common ways to measure standard of living.

The number of people who own their own land, or how many years you get for killing a cow, is not.

Sorry.

Not to mention you haven't sourced any of these "facts and figures," even if they were relevant to the argument.

Under what yard stick ?

Did it limit Soviet influence(real or imagined) in Latin America.
Arguably yes.
Did it help the people of Latin America.

Hell the fuck no.
Then again the interventions weren't meant to help the people of Latin America.

61st - Where Cuba ranks for corruption, out of 179.


Well that's better than Poland, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Georgia, India and 110 other countries.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

0 - Number of rival political parties allowed.

That's rather normal in a communist country.

While more parties are allowed in USA, it's ruled for ages by only 2.

Now I know you're just an anti-American troll. You ignored all the figures and facts that showed the actual reality of the situation.

I'm a troll, because you can't handle the truth?

That's rather normal in a communist country.

While more parties are allowed in USA, it's ruled for ages by only 2.

But they ALLOW dozens of political parties. Your point? The US is not suppressing freedom of expression.

Well that's better than Poland, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Georgia, India and 110 other countries.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

That's not actually an argument, you know. Just because one nation is 171st doesn't mean that 61st is suddenly good. Your own source says this:

A score of 5.0 is the number Transparency International considers the borderline figure distinguishing countries that do and do not have a serious corruption problem.

Cuba comes in at 4.2, meaning it is below the threshold where Transparency International considers a country to have serious corruption problems. Just because Myanmar is worse does not mean Cuba is good.

Population of Canada: 33,487,208
The Netherlands: 16,715,999

And USA... : 307,212,123

So they could sell 6x times more to USA then to Canada & The Netherlands combined. And probably more due its geographical location.

Significantly more, in fact. Cuba's proximity makes the US their natural trading partner.

Perhaps most telling is this:

The Netherlands: 16,715,999
Florida: 18,328,340

As the Netherlands represents Cuba's main trading partner, the possibilities implied just in comparing those two population numbers were the embargo lifted are substantial.

The number of people who own their own land, or how many years you get for killing a cow, is not.
The point is that there is total government domination, and no private rights in Cuba. The cow point was to demonstrate how there is extreme food scarcity in Cuba, due to the retarded planned economy Cuba oppresses its people with.
Sorry.
Be sorry that you missed the other points . . .

Not to mention you haven't sourced any of these "facts and figures," even if they were relevant to the argument.
How is listing the reasons why Cuba is so fucked up not relevant to talking about why Cuba is fucked up? Stay with me, please.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Economy

Well that's better than Poland, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Georgia, India and 110 other countries.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
Um, so? Telling me that one corrupt country is less corrupt than a ridiculously corrupt country is not a good argument to make . . . and literally all those countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, are more free than Cuba.
That's rather normal in a communist country.
Yes, so are all the other negative traits of Cuba that I listed that you ignored . . . and they are/were bad in every single Communist shithole, not just Cuba.

But they ALLOW dozens of political parties. Your point? The US is not suppressing freedom of expression.

His 'point' is that Cuba is a better place to live than America. His 'point' also lacks any kind of justification in reality . . .

Um, so?

The argument was about standard of living.

But at least you're quoting me now, which means that even though you are still ignoring everything I argue, you're not ignoring the fact that I am making posts. That's an improvement! I'm impressed.

Now kindly respond to my earlier post(s), unless of course you still can't and would prefer to keep ignoring them.

Ah, you edited. No improvements, though.

The point is that there is total government domination, and no private rights in Cuba. The cow point was to demonstrate how there is extreme food scarcity in Cuba, due to the retarded planned economy Cuba oppresses its people with.

The infant mortality figures earlier mentioned clearly show that there is no extreme starvation there, there is no extreme levels of death, and that the standard of living is just fine. Nope, the cow argument still fails. Punishments regarding cows do not a low standard of living make.

How is listing the reasons why Cuba is so fucked up not relevant to talking about why Cuba is fucked up? Stay with me, please.

I am staying with exactly what you WERE talking about, Mr Change The Goal Posts And Mock Others For Noticing, YOU said, and I quote:

"Say what you wish, but the standard of living in America is extremely higher than in Cuba. "

Well, it isn't. And also do take note, "standard of living" (the point of argument) is not "how fucked up" (a clearly subjective evaluation).


Be sorry that you missed the other points . . .

I'm sorry that you believe the above statement is in any way addressing, or even acknowledging, what I wrote.

You can go ahead and be sorry that you have no defense for all the US interventions in Latin America, and that your only possible "argument" (I use the term lightly, since it seems to consist mostly of you either ignoring people or saying your opponents are anti-American trolls) is to completely dismiss or sweep each and every one of them into the rug.

Which is understandable in that.... US interventions in Latin America are indefensible. Which could well be why you've been trying to turn the thread subject into something different, namely, "How fucked up Cuba allegedly is."

You said that Interventionism was part of Roosevelt's corollary, not manifest destiny. Well, Interventionism began long before Roosevelt.
It wasn't the same. Expansionism and Interventionism aren't the same. Expansionism had to do with expanding American territory, while interventionism, which came later, had to do with either protecting American interests or anti-communism, or some combination.
So you merely implied it - it is the logical extension of your increasingly less coherent claims.
There has been nothing logical about your posts yet.
And I see you're responding to this post because you can get away with some smug 7-word reply, while steadfastly ignoring this (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14818938&postcount=17) one (because you can't).
Oh that, ok let's see below.

Oh, interventions in Latin America. The Atlantian Isles wants to defend them.
Okay, go ahead. Take each and every one of these and prove to me how they made the world, and Latin America, and the countries involved better places:

*SNIP

Get to work TAI.
I saw your biased and irrelevant post and passed it by as such. I didn't ask whether certain conflicts were good or bad, but instead the OP talks about success.

Again, try to keep up.

The argument was about standard of living. Yes, I know. And my point, that you ignored, was that standard of living is also hurt in Cuba by things such as:

0 - Number of non state-propoganda media outlets allowed.

0 - Number of rival political parties allowed.

0 - Number of copies of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights one may be allowed to have.

0 - Number of institutions one can attend without getting an 'education' that equals to a brainwashing in Marxism by the state.

0 - Number of courts free from political interference.

0 - Number of Cubans legally allowed to leave the island (does not include offical government members or individuals granted access to leave by the state).

0 - Number of people who can own their own land.

0- Number of investments made without going through the state.

$16.70 - How much money a Cuban makes per month.

61st - Where Cuba ranks for corruption, out of 179.

72.6% - Percentage of GDP that was government spending.

220 - Number of Political Prisoners being held by the Communist government.

Prisoner sentence for 'illegally' killing a cow - Longer than killing a human.

Amount of Human Rights violations in Cuba - "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[90] The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law"."


So you'll excuse me if I tell you to get a reality check before seriously comparing the standard of living and human development in the US with that of Cuba.

I actually find it funny. I've never met someone so blind as to clame that the standard of life in Cuba is better than in the U.S.

Do you fucking realize what many of those people have to go through because of their selfish government? Do you realize the extreme poverty that exists in Cuba that makes child prostitution a opportunistic career in order to make enough money to get by? How can you sit there without a "lulz j/k" after your post and tell me that the standard of living in Cuba is just fine? If it were 'just fine' I seriously doubt that many Cuban families would resort to that practice for their daughters . . .

It's a good thing not everyone here is a total retard. Cuba is less developed than the United States that much is obvious. Cuba has an estimated GDP per capita of $9,500 compared to the US GDP per capita of $46,859. Meaning the US must be much wealthier overall.

It's a good thing not everyone here is a total retard. Cuba is less developed than the United States that much is obvious. Cuba has an estimated GDP per capita of $9,500 compared to the US GDP per capita of $46,859. Meaning the US must be much wealthier overall.

PPP or exchange rate ?

PPP or exchange rate ?

I used PPP instead of nominal GDP. However, I don't see how exchange rates have any significant correlation to a nation's value. Japan is wealthier than Mexico yet the Yen is worth alot less than the Peso. Currencies flucuate everyday. So a currency being worth that much less or more than another currency does not in any way determine that a nation is necessarily poorer or richer than another country.

I used PPP instead of nominal GDP. However, I don't see how exchange rates have any significant correlation to a nation's value. Japan is wealthier than Mexico yet the Yen is worth alot less than the Peso. Currencies flucuate everyday.

nominal is exchange rate. all you do is calculate GDP in local currency then convert to dollars. I just differed in terminology, was thinking last step.

PPP Has the addition of cost of living adjustment.

I saw your biased and irrelevant post and passed it by as such.

Right, you completely fucking ignored it. And didn't respond. You haven't even pointed out how it is biased and it is NOT irrelevant, it is a LIST of United States INTERVENTIONS in LATIN AMERICA.

In case you're a bit slow here, United States Interventionism in Latin America Is The Topic Of Your Thread And This Discussion.

So it is not irrelevant.

Need I make that statement again? Not irrelevant? Maybe I should post it 3 times before it'll sink in and you'll deign to respond with some lunacy like "Uh, so?" again?

And if it's biased, how? What parts? The facts are all accurate but you could try disputing them.

But no, you didn't feel like even pointing that out. Just ignore the whole bloody thing and try to handwave it away. I bet you didn't even read it, just like you obviously aren't reading, and probably won't read in the future.

I didn't ask whether certain conflicts were good or bad, but instead the OP talks about success.

Again, try to keep up.

Oooh, I'm so slow, I better hurry, or else I might only respond to 99% of your posts while you ignore 99% of mine! I'm falling behind!

So you want to talk about success, but not about goodness or badness.

How convenient, of course, let's just not talk about that part, and let's instead (and again) berate opponents by treating them like idiots while you deliberately ignore the fucking argument.

Shh. Quiet! Let's talk about the alleged penalty for killing a cow in Cuba but for God's sake let's not talk about US Interventions in Latin America! That might be irrelevant!

Just sweep those corpses under the rug, why don't you. Just mop the blood up. We're all just "anti-Americans" for even mentioning it. The nerve!

Yes, I know. And my point, that you ignored, was that standard of living is also hurt in Cuba by things such as:

As I said which you ignored, those are not measures of the standards of living, and your listing of them means absolutely nothing. They are by your own (conceited and unreliable) claim "facts and figures," not an argument.

You have not showed any causal relationship between, for example, the number of "non-state propaganda media outlets allowed" and the standard of living. You know, the standard of living we were just talking about? But no, I guess when you're dismissing entire arguments out-of-hand, you needn't deign to explain why at the time.


A state could in fact have ZERO propaganda media outlets (go-lly!), public nor private, would that mean it has a poor standard of living? No. A much better indicator is again what HK - who you've conveniently dismissed as an "anti-American troll" - posted, namely things like mortality rates.

So you'll excuse me if I tell you to get a reality check before seriously comparing the standard of living and human development in the US with that of Cuba.

You're excused, sonny.

Ronald Reagan (1884)

Haha! I knew that when Ronald Reagan got elected as PotUS he was already a ZOMBIE!!!
:D

That's what my textbook states on American interventionist foreign policy during the Cold War for my class on International Politics of Latin America. While being a bit leftist for my liking, and a bit too biased on Reagan, it is still a good read and argues its points well.
So I ask the question my book states as fact. Was interventionism in Latin America successful?


In a strictly Cold-War era point of view, hell yes it was: most of Latin America, during the Cold War, aligned with the US. (or was forced by the US to do so).

From a Monroe doctrine point of view (not linked to the specific Cold War era), not quite - as today most of South America has shifted to more leftist stances, and has built stronger commercial and military links with other countries (China, Russia, Japan, the EU).

I think it's because the cost/benefits ratio of US intervention in Latin America has changed vastly since the USSR is no more.

Do you fucking realize what many of those people have to go through because of their selfish government? Do you realize the extreme poverty that exists in Cuba that makes child prostitution a opportunistic career in order to make enough money to get by? How can you sit there without a "lulz j/k" after your post and tell me that the standard of living in Cuba is just fine? If it were 'just fine' I seriously doubt that many Cuban families would resort to that practice for their daughters . . .

And of course the US embargo has nothing to do with that level of poverty whatsoever, I presume.....

Just sweep those corpses under the rug, why don't you. Just mop the blood up. We're all just "anti-Americans" for even mentioning it. The nerve!


Make a thread titled: The proposed murder and robbery of TAI: Success or failure.

He would applaud it no doubt.

*nod*

Do you fucking realize what many of those people have to go through because of their selfish government?

I find it quite hypocritical that you even dare to think of drawing up the moral card on when you started a thread about bloodshed, expansionism, totalitarianism and cruelty on a great many more people in the name of selfish expansionism.

I also would find this strange moral system of yours sufficient justification to shoot you, take your belongings and feed your corpse and those of your family (after subjecting them to a year or so of torture in front of you of course) to various dogs, and then wag my finger at someone who litters, secure in my righteousness.

That is, if I were to subscribe to your moral system.

...The cow point was to demonstrate how there is extreme food scarcity in Cuba, due to the retarded planned economy Cuba oppresses its people with....

That has to do with a fresh milk and beef scarcity. Not food in general. Beef and fresh milk are difficult to import from the Netherlands. But as Caloderia pointed out, this is besides the point.

As for standard of living, Cuba is 5th in Latin America (48th overall), surpassed only by Uruguay (47th), Argentina (46th), Chile (40th), and Barbados (37th). For comparison, USA is ranked at 15th, and Canada at 3rd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

It is important to compare Cuba to other latin American nations with a similar history and geography if you want to look at things like standard of living. Comparisons to resource-rich developed nations like the US paint a false picture of extreme poverty, even if the developing nation is doing much better than its neighbours.

To tie standard of living back to the OP, if US intervention was meant to increase the standard of living in Latin America nations, then we can say that it has not been successful. If it had been, we would see that nations such as Guatemala, Nicaragua and Haiti, who felt the influence of US intervention far more than Cuba, would have a higher standard of living.

And of course the US embargo has nothing to do with that level of poverty whatsoever, I presume.....
To an extent, of course. It would be foolish to think otherwise. But it would also be foolish not to realize that literally every authoritarian/marxist state that has come into existence has failed in building a modern, efficient state with a high standard of living. Rather, all of them have been highly corrupt, highly dictatorial, highly censoring of speech, extremely unfree politically and economically and in general have kept their populations walled into such nations, literally at gunpoint, forming de-facto prisons.

Cuba is no exception.

If the Castros wanted what was best for Cuba, they would have turned Cuba into a capitalist/liberal democracy long ago. Instead, they have selfishly denied the Cuban people freedom and prosperity even after decades and decades of realization that their system does not work well.

Fidel Castro will die, knowing that he has left behind an unfree, corrupt, highly dictatorial, backwards police state and a failed dream. To add insult to injury, Cuba will eventually become free and will open economically. Castro has just postponed the inevitable.

After all, "We must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."

Quizas no sea hoy, ni manana . . . pero muy pronto nuestro dia nos llegara. Viva Cuba Libre!

If the Castros wanted what was best for Cuba, they would have turned Cuba into a capitalist/liberal democracy long ago. Instead, they have selfishly denied the Cuban people freedom and prosperity even after decades and decades of realization that their system does not work well. ]

....not unrelated to the attitude of the US at the time. Whatever about Castros motives, a great deal of those who supported him viewed the US as a hostile entity willing to bring back the previous regime or one in its image. Subsequent US intervention would have done nothing to change that idea. Thus they idealistically chose the devil they knew.

If the Castros wanted what was best for Cuba, they would have turned Cuba into a capitalist/liberal democracy long ago. Instead, they have selfishly denied the Cuban people freedom and prosperity even after decades and decades of realization that their system does not work well.

Oh yes. And how has capitalism served the nation of Haiti? So prosperous that they're eating mud (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512) since they can't afford anything else thanks to globalization and capitalism (and bad weather of course). My, capitalism certainly seems to have served them well. Perhaps you better go and preach to them how lucky they are hmmm?

In a vague attempt to tie Cuba back to the OP...

Whatever faults we can ascribe to the Cuban government, we can safely say that US intervention in Cuba by the US since 1959 has been pretty much unsuccessful.

His 'point' is that Cuba is a better place to live than America. His 'point' also lacks any kind of justification in reality . . .

I never said that. Show me, little troll.

You are the one that is describing Cuba as miserable place while its people end their life at almost the same moment as Americans.

But they ALLOW dozens of political parties. Your point? The US is not suppressing freedom of expression.

Well, that's not entirely true. Many journalist received the sack at the moment that Bush was thinking of invading Iraq. They were labelled as unpatriotic for writing the truth.

No worries, such events happens almost everywhere.

Mmm, the poll. Not one right winger answered it. Or they are too smart or they are all death?

Mmm, the poll. Not one right winger answered it. Or they are too smart or they are all death?

:eek: You've given me this really aweful image of Sean Hannity in a Grim Reaper outfit

:eek: You've given me this really aweful image of Sean Hannity in a Grim Reaper outfit

BrainDead Like Me.

Oh yes. And how has capitalism served the nation of Haiti? So prosperous that they're eating mud since they can't afford anything else thanks to globalization and capitalism (and bad weather of course). My, capitalism certainly seems to have served them well.

You blame Haiti's poverty on capitalism when it probably has nothing to do with that country's condition. Maybe it has more to do with Haiti's earlier inappropriate economic policies, political instability, a shortage of good arable land, the continued use of traditional technologies, and under-capitalization.

For capitalism to even work there must be entrepreneurs that can provide jobs and investment for innovation of products and consumers. But unfortunately for Haiti, no one is interested. Even tourism, a once significant industry that could benefit Haiti has suffered due to the country's inability to become politically stable.

You blame Haiti's poverty on capitalism when it probably has nothing to do with that country's condition. Maybe it has more to do with Haiti's earlier inappropriate economic policies, political instability, a shortage of good arable land, the continued use of traditional technologies, and under-capitalization.

For capitalism to even work there must be entrepreneurs that can provide jobs and investment for innovation of products and consumers. But unfortunately for Haiti, no one is interested. Even tourism, a once significant industry that could benefit Haiti has suffered due to the country's inability to become politically stable.

Considering the extent of US involvement in Haiti since 1804 (the year the US and the French tried to suppress the slave rebellion, and failed), it is remarkable that all of those problems you mentioned persist to this day.

One could almost say that the US intervention failed to bring about the necessary conditions for a successful capitalist society.

You blame Haiti's poverty on capitalism when it probably has nothing to do with that country's condition. Maybe it has more to do with Haiti's earlier inappropriate economic policies, political instability, a shortage of good arable land, the continued use of traditional technologies, and under-capitalization.


Grain dumping practices (which are done by big subsidized agribusinesses) by the US and Europe killed Haitian staples agriculture, forcing rice farmers out of business and to grow cash crops to generate income. This was not sustainable for the population at large and when the agribusiness's raised prices, it was too late to start growing staples. So the starvation we see there is a direct result of the Western capitalism you people like to tout as the cure all instead of the snake oil it really is.

Try again when you know what you're talking about.

Or maybe you do and you simply want to wring every last dollar out of these people and toss them aside like used rags once they're utterly broke. That would be truer to the kind of capitalism TAI blathers about.

So the starvation we see there is a direct result of the Western capitalism you people like to tout as the cure all instead of the snake oil it really is.
Yes, it's the consequences of movements in market prices. One went one way, the other went the other way, both of them went against Haiti.

It's so very easy to come around all high and mighty and blame "agribusiness" and whatever else.

It's kinda harder to actually think about feasible solutions. Hence, when there's an actual thread with actual facts (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=571011), no one responds.

Yes, it's the consequences of movements in market prices. One went one way, the other went the other way, both of them went against Haiti.

But if you consider the likes of TAI who beat the drum of "Capitalism brings prosperity to all", you'll see that they either brush off the negative consequences of pretend they don't exist.


It's kinda harder to actually think about feasible solutions.


I won't pretend to have all the answers, but isn't part of the problem in that thread the over-reliance on interconnected markets and regional specializations without any form of safety margin to ensure that you don't get crippled when one goes bust?

I won't pretend to have all the answers, but isn't part of the problem in that thread the over-reliance on interconnected markets and regional specializations without any form of safety margin to ensure that you don't get crippled when one goes bust?
Well, in this case the lack of a safety net could probably be blamed. But implementing such a safety net brings with it a whole host of negative consequences.

What is really needed is food distribution businesses in countries like Haiti having access to the infrastructure needed to not only be able to quickly access overseas market, but to financial markets and derivatives that allow them to hedge as well, so that when prices move against them, it doesn't mean they simply can't get any food. For a small country like Haiti, you could even feasibly think that a government agency, working with the World Bank, could be setting up such a portfolio of positions and contracts aimed at making food imports stable even in adverse market conditions.

Please. First of all, there has never been even one politically marxist command-economy that has generated an economically stable, politically free nation with a high standard of living for its citizens.

What about Vietnam? It's standards are quite higher than they were under the French colonial administrations. They even retire from work at 55 iirc - and that's after 30 years of continual war (WW2, the against France, US+ANZ,China,Khmer Rouge iirc).

Anyway, if Castro hadn't been boycotted by the US just after seizing the power, very likely he wouldn't have aligned with CCCP - as proven by the triumphal tour he took through the US. I daresay that the usually stupid and near-sighted US foreign policies carry much responsibility for Cuba being what it is right now.

Oy, I forgot: Yugoslavia. Their standards, expecially in Croatia and Slovenia, were quite high, and they were so politically free that actually Slovenia and Macedonia seceded legally without a war (Croatia and BiH are a different matter - because of borders and ethnical cleansing on all sides). Yugoslavia wasn't a total "command" economy, though, at least not as much as CCCP was.

Oh, interventions in Latin America. The Atlantian Isles wants to defend them.
Okay, go ahead. Take each and every one of these and prove to me how they made the world, and Latin America, and the countries involved better places:

*big snip*

Get to work TAI.

Wow... I knew it was bad. I had no idea it was that heavy-handed.

Wow... I knew it was bad. I had no idea it was that heavy-handed.

I had a similar reaction when I first saw that particular list. I think there's probably a lot of people in the US who honestly have no idea how many times, and to what extent, the US has intervened in Latin America, or why.

You are the one that is describing Cuba as miserable place while its people end their life at almost the same moment as Americans.
How long Cubans live doesn't mean that their long life isn't lived through extreme poverty, governmental domination and cencorship . . .

How long Cubans live doesn't mean that their long life isn't lived through extreme poverty.

The Bhutanese are ranked as one of the most satisfied people in the world IIRC, and compared to the rest of the world, they're actually very poor. People who equate richness with happiness are going to be miserable bastards for the rest of their lives.

I also see that you ignored the Haitan mess that capitalism was supposed to "cure".

And you misspelled censorship.

Oh yes. And how has capitalism served the nation of Haiti? So prosperous that they're eating mud (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512) since they can't afford anything else thanks to globalization and capitalism (and bad weather of course). My, capitalism certainly seems to have served them well. Perhaps you better go and preach to them how lucky they are hmmm?

Um? So that Haiti is fucked up is Capitalism's fault? It couldn't be the fault of ridiculously shitty leadership Haiti has had, the corruption, instability and domestic coups . . . or the extreme authoritarianism that forced many of the few educated the country has to flee to America, Canada and France instead of remaining in Haiti . . . . ?


Unless of course you'd like to explain to me how it's capitalism's fault. I'd love to hear that. :)

The Bhutanese are ranked as one of the most satisfied people in the world IIRC, and compared to the rest of the world, they're actually very poor.
I thought that was Denmark . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm

People who equate richness with happiness are going to be miserable bastards for the rest of their lives.
Right.... ignorance is bliss. :rolleyes:

It's not just richness, but the wealth to have financial security, to be able to raise your kids well without having to worry about whether or not you'll be able to cover their basic financial needs. Or the fact that you can express yourself, travel, run for office, hear opposing views and be educated, all freely and free from government domination. Those are among the many luxuries that Cubans do not enjoy.

What about Vietnam? It's standards are quite higher than they were under the French colonial administrations. They even retire from work at 55 iirc - and that's after 30 years of continual war (WW2, the against France, US+ANZ,China,Khmer Rouge iirc).
Vietnam was doing quite awful until the 80's. That's when the leadership, intelligently, decided to institute economic and political reform and restructure Vietnam which has resulted in the boom Vietnam has since seen.

What happend in Vietnam was not that unlike what happend in Chile. The government, while maintainng a total monopoly on the Vietnamese political process, implemented hard core free-market liberalization that resulted in an epic economic boom that saved Vietnam.

Anyway, if Castro hadn't been boycotted by the US just after seizing the power, very likely he wouldn't have aligned with CCCP - as proven by the triumphal tour he took through the US. I daresay that the usually stupid and near-sighted US foreign policies carry much responsibility for Cuba being what it is right now.
Cuba would have been better off if the U.S. had just annexed it after Cuba's liberation from Spain.

Oy, I forgot: Yugoslavia. Their standards, expecially in Croatia and Slovenia, were quite high, and they were so politically free that actually Slovenia and Macedonia seceded legally without a war (Croatia and BiH are a different matter - because of borders and ethnical cleansing on all sides). Yugoslavia wasn't a total "command" economy, though, at least not as much as CCCP was.
What exactly is your point here? Not being rude, but I honestly don't know what you are trying to prove here.

Cuba would have been better off if the U.S. had just annexed it after Cuba's liberation from Spain.

Castro most likely would have aligned with the US had we not boycotted his rule. The point still stands.

Castro most likely would have aligned with the US had we not boycotted
him. The point still stands.
I doubt the relationship would have worked out. We hardly ever remain friendly with governments that institute nationalizations and land reforms that endanger American economic interests . . . historically.

I thought that was Denmark . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5224306.stm

Your own article links happiness to access to healthcare, something more capitalist countries fall behind appallingly on.

While this one indicates that the Bhutanese are actually quite happy.

And of course, if we want to talk about the opposite ends of the financial spectrum. Nigeria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3157570.stm

Either case, none of the above countries are exactly hallmarks of capitalist paradises that you seem to think are necessary to make people happy.


Right.... ignorance is bliss. :rolleyes:


No. Unlimited consumerism is idiocy. It's no different than being hooked up on cocaine. You need your next hit of consumerism and it's got to be bigger and bigger doses for that next high.


It's not just richness, but the wealth to have financial security, to be able to raise your kids well without having to worry about whether or not you'll be able to cover their basic financial needs.


This is where your argument falls apart. You can't eat money. Money can secure some things, but is not always the case. What would you have in a desert island? A bag of gold or a bag of potatoes?


Or the fact that you can express yourself,


I would take the accounts from people who have actually been to Cuba and talked to the people more seriously than you, who have never been there. I believe it was either Neesika or Muravyets who went there before, and by one of their accounts, the people did freely express themselves.


travel, run for office, hear opposing views


This has nothing at all to do with happiness.


and be educated,

Are you claiming that the Cuban people do not have schools, colleges and universities?


Those are among the many luxuries that Cubans do not enjoy.

If you need luxuries to find happiness, then you were never happy to begin with. Just a consumerism junkie.


Unless of course you'd like to explain to me how it's capitalism's fault. I'd love to hear that.

Grain dumping practices by subsidized agribusinesses in the US and Europe driving Haitian farmers out of work. But please, go ahead and pretend I didn't already mention that in this thread. Or you could go for the big one and pretend that dumping practices don't exist, much less the practice of driving local production out of business with artificially cheap goods and reducing money circulation and overall destroying the local economy.

For a self proclaimed advocate of capitalism, you are astoundingly ignorant of its practices. Or maybe you do know, and want to pretend it doesn't exist so that you may benefit from it.

I doubt the relationship would have worked out. We hardly ever remain friendly with governments that institute nationalizations and land reforms that endanger American economic interests . . . historically.

True, but you'd think Political interests would override that. The USSR could have, and tried to, put Mid-Range Nuclear Missiles there. If our government at the time had any sense, they would have allowed and supported Castro's rule. Do you really think Castro would have remained such a hard line Communist had we supported him? His rule would have been.... Softer. Democratic or Capitalist? No, but a softer, slightly freer Cuba, most certainly. Then again, hindsight is 20/20...

True, but you'd think Political interests would override that. The USSR could have, and tried to, put Mid-Range Nuclear Missiles there. If our government at the time had any sense, they would have allowed and supported Castro's rule. Do you really think Castro would have remained such a hard line Communist had we supported him? His rule would have been.... Softer. Democratic or Capitalist? No, but a softer, slightly freer Cuba, most certainly. Then again, hindsight is 20/20...

Yeah, but we put Cuba out in the cold long before they had Soviet nukes . . . there are years in between there . . . your argument there doesn't really make sense.

Hindsight is 20/20, you're right there though. Like I said, we should have just annexed Cuba after its liberation from Spain.

Your own article links happiness to access to healthcare, something more capitalist countries fall behind appallingly on.
Which Capitalist countries fall behind on healthcare? Surely you meant the problems the U.S. has with its corrupt pharmaeceutical companies, not 'capitalist countries' in general. Also, from my own article, happiness was national health, national (high GDP) prosperity, and a well educated populace. Wealth, it seems, is a rather large part of happiness.

Switzerland (quite money-oriented) and Austria come behind Denmark.

While this one indicates that the Bhutanese are actually quite happy.

And of course, if we want to talk about the opposite ends of the financial spectrum. Nigeria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3157570.stm

From the article:

But factors that make people happy may vary from one country to the next with personal success and self-expression being seen as the most important in the US, while in Japan, fulfilling the expectations of family and society is valued more highly.


Either case, none of the above countries are exactly hallmarks of capitalist paradises that you seem to think are necessary to make people happy.
Um what? Denmark is a welfare-capitalist state. That means it still competes in the international market, it is highly entrepreneural, and at the same time it provides alot of social services. It's not my favorite style of political-economy, but it is still a capitalist economy. I am not, nor have I ever been, a proponent of pure-capitalism (which doesn't exist) or minarchism or anarcho-capitalism or whatever you think I promote.

In the introduction of Denmark, Wikipedia states: "Denmark, with a free market capitalist economy and a large welfare state,[3] ranks according to one measure, as having the world's highest level of income equality."

No. Unlimited consumerism is idiocy. It's no different than being hooked up on cocaine. You need your next hit of consumerism and it's got to be bigger and bigger doses for that next high.
Unlimited Consumerism? What a loaded term . . . the unlimited ability to buy what you want if you are able to afford it? How awful. :rolleyes: The unlimited ability for people to to sell goods to others who wish to purchase said goods to satisfy their needs? How awful. :rolleyes:


This is where your argument falls apart. You can't eat money. Money can secure some things, but is not always the case. What would you have in a desert island? A bag of gold or a bag of potatoes?
In our world money is used to buy goods. Thus, there was nothing wrong with this:

It's not just richness, but the wealth to have financial security, to be able to raise your kids well without having to worry about whether or not you'll be able to cover their basic financial needs.

I would take the accounts from people who have actually been to Cuba and talked to the people more seriously than you, who have never been there. I believe it was either Neesika or Muravyets who went there before, and by one of their accounts, the people did freely express themselves.
Um . . . so are you claiming that there is free-expression of opposition to the government in Cuba?

As an example, you do know that the government has does not allow ordinary Cubans to use the internet? Only foreigners (read tourists) have access . . . in the hotels where only foreigners aren't allowed to stay. . .


This has nothing at all to do with happiness.
How subjective. Being free to voice your own views instead of being censored has nothing to do with happiness?

It does with mine.

Are you claiming that the Cuban people do not have schools, colleges and universities?
Not at all, and if you would not have snipped the rest of my sentence, you would have seen that. :rolleyes:

"Or the fact that you can express yourself, travel, run for office, hear opposing views and be educated, all freely and free from government domination."

Awkward phrasing aside, education in Cuba is partisan, marxist brainwashing and this is a known fact.

Strong ideological content is present. Educational and cultural policy is based on Marxist ideology. A file is kept on children's "revolutionary integration" and it accompanies the child for life.[119] University options will depend on how well the person is integrated to Marxist ideology[119] as well as a permission from the "Committee for the Defense of the Revolution".[120] The Code for Children, Youth and Family states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison.[119]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Education


If you need luxuries to find happiness, then you were never happy to begin with. Just a consumerism junkie.
Those 'luxuries' I mentioned were financial stability, freedom to express oneself, run for office, hear opposing viewpoints and be educated, all without government domination.


Grain dumping practices by subsidized agribusinesses in the US and Europe driving Haitian farmers out of work. But please, go ahead and pretend I didn't already mention that in this thread.
It is as ridiculous to assume that Haiti's farmers can compete in agriculture with Europe and America on the global market as it is to wish that the American auto-makers can compete with Asian and European carmakers. Of course, both those industries can be propped up, nationally, but at the expense of the tax-paying consumer.

Haiti's economic condition will only improve when it (and only Haiti can do this) stabilizes itself, educates itself and becomes safe and open enough for real foreign investment. Until that day, Haiti will be the broken nation it has been for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, but we put Cuba out in the cold long before they had Soviet nukes . . . there are years in between there . . . your argument there doesn't really make sense.

Hindsight is 20/20, you're right there though. Like I said, we should have just annexed Cuba after its liberation from Spain.


I think I might agree with that second part, but my argument makes sense, even if you don't agree with it. The US should have, oh, I don't know, Noticed how close Cuba was to the USA, and taken steps to turn Castro towards the USA. Preparation, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or however the saying goes.;)

Oh yes. And how has capitalism served the nation of Haiti? So prosperous that they're eating mud (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512) since they can't afford anything else thanks to globalization and capitalism (and bad weather of course). My, capitalism certainly seems to have served them well. Perhaps you better go and preach to them how lucky they are hmmm?

Perhaps has more to do with ineffective government.
Or the US restoration of said ineffective government 30 days before the military was set to hold an election and give up power (and would have happened within 30 days of the coup if the US had not blocked it.)

I think I might agree with that second part, but my argument makes sense, even if you don't agree with it. The US should have, oh, I don't know, Noticed how close Cuba was to the USA, and taken steps to turn Castro towards the USA. Preparation, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or however the saying goes.;)
Hmm, alright. I just think we didn't realize that another foreign power would actually come in and place military in Cuba, given our longstanding presumption that we were the protector/occupier of The Americas against old world powers. . .

Which Capitalist countries fall behind on healthcare? Surely you meant the problems the U.S. has with its corrupt pharmaeceutical companies, not 'capitalist countries' in general.

More capitalist, as in less regulations. Since you have pointed out the US (who's economic model you seem to be thumping) and the problems it has with pharmaceutical companies, I would take it to mean that you agree with me.


Also, from my own article, happiness was national health, national (high GDP) prosperity, and a well educated populace. Wealth, it seems, is a rather large part of happiness.

33% is a rather large part of it? And high GDP means nothing if you've got a lousy mortality rate. You can't spend money if you're dead from easily preventable diseases. Or maybe you can, and end up bankrupt as part of the process.


From the article:


You'll also note that it mentioned that happiness varies from one country to another. So why do you insist that only your interpretation would generate happiness for everyone?

Did you become an evangelical or something?


Unlimited Consumerism? What a loaded term . . . the unlimited ability to buy what you want if you are able to afford it? How awful. :rolleyes: The unlimited ability for people to to sell goods to others who wish to purchase said goods to satisfy their needs? How awful. :rolleyes:


Missed the point did you? Ever see a cocaine addict say that one hit is enough without lying about it? See what they do to get their next hit? Unlimited consumerism is like that, only without the syringes and snorting. An addiction.


Um . . . so are you claiming that there is free-expression of opposition to the government in Cuba?

Muravyets/Neesika did mention that the people they talked to did complain about what they thought was wrong with the government.


As an example, you do know that the government has does not allow ordinary Cubans to use the internet? Only foreigners (read tourists) have access . . . in the hotels where only foreigners aren't allowed to stay. . .

So foreigners don't have access?


How subjective. Being free to voice your own views instead of being censored has nothing to do with happiness?

It does with mine.

But you aren't the Cuban people.


Those 'luxuries' I mentioned were financial stability, freedom to express oneself, run for office, hear opposing viewpoints and be educated, all without government domination.

Most of which means nothing if you don't satisfy the precursor needs. Having the freedom to express yourself or run for office is a whole lot of rubbish if you're dying from some disease or starving, and I bet you wouldn't be happy either.


It is as ridiculous to assume that Haiti's farmers can compete in agriculture with Europe and America on the global market as it is to wish that the American auto-makers can compete with Asian and European carmakers.

So you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. Or maybe you do, and are trying to pretend you don't so you can make your silly little strawman.

Haiti can't feed itself because it's populace were put out of work by cheap imports. If the people cannot work because there is nothing they can produce that is sold cheaper, then they cannot generate income. The logical conclusion is that starvation sets in.

But nevermind the dumping practices of the subsidized American and European agribusiness. Oh no. Stay the course you cry. More capitalism. Free market will solve everything.

Maybe a 50,000% tariff on American and European grain imports will sound sweet to you.

Perhaps has more to do with ineffective government.
Or the US restoration of said ineffective government 30 days before the military was set to hold an election and give up power (and would have happened within 30 days of the coup if the US had not blocked it.)

It's a part of it, but not the only reason why things are so bad down there. But since we're talking about interventionism (or at least were), we can say that once again, US interventionism is anything but good for the people they are intervening on.

Hmm, alright. I just think we didn't realize that another foreign power would actually come in and place military in Cuba, given our longstanding presumption that we were the protector/occupier of The Americas against old world powers. . .

Yeah, we didn't see it coming. The rules changed with the Cold War, and we just weren't ready. And now, we debate about what to do with our view of things, 50 years after the fact. :p

More capitalist, as in less regulations.
You stated more capitalist countries fall behind on healthcare. Which ones?


Since you have pointed out the US (who's economic model you seem to be thumping) and the problems it has with pharmaceutical companies, I would take it to mean that you agree with me.
I have pointed at that the U.S. has issues with healthcare, but that's one country. You said "more capitalist countries are fall behind on healthcare."

Which ones?


33% is a rather large part of it? And high GDP means nothing if you've got a lousy mortality rate. You can't spend money if you're dead from easily preventable diseases. Or maybe you can, and end up bankrupt as part of the process.
Yes, if (and using this defintion only) a 1/3 of your happiness is based on money, that's a large portion of it.

Defense spending makes up about 1/6 of U.S. federal spending, that's alot. 1/3 of something is alot more.

You'll also note that it mentioned that happiness varies from one country to another. So why do you insist that only your interpretation would generate happiness for everyone?
I'm not. I am arguing your 'money doesn't buy happiness' point, that money, amongst other things, does make one happy.


Missed the point did you? Ever see a cocaine addict say that one hit is enough without lying about it? See what they do to get their next hit? Unlimited consumerism is like that, only without the syringes and snorting. An addiction.
The ability to buy and sell what one wishes is a good thing. Convince me otherwise.


Muravyets/Neesika did mention that the people they talked to did complain about what they thought was wrong with the government.

Are you claiming that free expression of opposition to the government of Cuba is allowed?

So foreigners don't have access?
It was a typo and you know it. Foreigners in foreigner-only hotels have internet access, ordinary Cubans do not.


But you aren't the Cuban people.
Does being free to voice one's own views instead of being censored have nothing to do with overall happiness?


Most of which means nothing if you don't satisfy the precursor needs. Having the freedom to express yourself or run for office is a whole lot of rubbish if you're dying from some disease or starving, and I bet you wouldn't be happy either.
Except Cuban people are relatively healthy, so what is the government's excuse of not allowing people to run for office (except through the Communist party) ? ? ?



Haiti can't feed itself because it's populace were put out of work by cheap imports. If the people cannot work because there is nothing they can produce that is sold cheaper, then they cannot generate income. The logical conclusion is that starvation sets in.
Better to have access to cheaper imported foods for the consumer than to have to subsidize domestic famers which results in more expensive food for the consumers.

You stated more capitalist countries fall behind on healthcare. Which ones?

I have pointed at that the U.S. has issues with healthcare, but that's one country. You said "more capitalist countries are fall behind on healthcare."

Which ones?


Ones that don't have form of universal health care. That just leaves the U.S. here, at least among the wealthy and industrialized nations, since even Switzerland has one.


Yes, if (and using this defintion only) a 1/3 of your happiness is based on money, that's a large portion of it.

Defense spending makes up about 1/6 of U.S. federal spending, that's alot. 1/3 of something is alot more.

Hold up. The article doesn't mention how much of the GDP contributes to happiness. It mentions education, healthcare and GDP. It doesn't mention which has a greater weight or if they're all equal. The 1/3 assumption doesn't work.

The BBC survey also shows 81% of the interviewed preferring government focus on making them happier instead of wealthier. Obviously that 81% do not equate wealth with happiness.


I'm not. I am arguing your 'money doesn't buy happiness' point, that money, amongst other things, does make one happy.


Money is an enabler. It does not, in itself, generate happiness. It can however, generate a great deal of misery through people doing anything and everything they can to get their hands on it.

For example, knowingly selling poisonous products to the public as beneficial to their health, all the while suppressing reports to the otherwise and bribing medical professionals to endorse it.


The ability to buy and sell what one wishes is a good thing. Convince me otherwise.

Your life, or rather, the cessation of it. I do not think you would agree that it is a good thing if I could buy that.

But you are missing the point.


Are you claiming that free expression of opposition to the government of Cuba is allowed?

By Neesika/Muravyet's account, apparently they do, unless you have some different definition of what free expression is.


It was a typo and you know it. Foreigners in foreigner-only hotels have internet access, ordinary Cubans do not.

So? All it tells me is that your idea of free speech is a great deal more encompassing than what the words mean.


Does being free to voice one's own views instead of being censored have nothing to do with overall happiness?


Absolutely not. Happiness begins with basic needs fulfillment, after that, it's a question of want fulfillment, which differs from culture to culture. You don't take a chainsaw to someone's legs and yell "Rejoice! I've set you free from the shackles of legdom!"


Except Cuban people are relatively healthy, so what is the government's excuse of not allowing people to run for office (except through the Communist party) ? ? ?

Oh? So now you acknowledge that the people are relatively healthy, when you were insisting earlier that they were on the verge of starvation.


Better to have access to cheaper imported foods for the consumer than to have to subsidize domestic famers which results in more expensive food for the consumers.

Except these cheap imports are putting people out of work and there's little alternative employment for them.

Let me put it this way. You do landscaping work yes? Imagine if someone else came along and did the same job for a tenth of what you charge for it. At those prices, you'd starve. Somehow, these people don't. They get subsidized by the government, so they can afford those prices. You don't. So you lose your job. You might try other jobs, but those are also filled with people doing the same work for a fraction of what you need to survive.

Would you still think it a good thing for these people to do your job so cheap you can't find any work, much less put food on your plate?

It's a part of it, but not the only reason why things are so bad down there. But since we're talking about interventionism (or at least were), we can say that once again, US interventionism is anything but good for the people they are intervening on.

Korea did pretty well in the long run from US intervention.
I think the farther a country is away the more like we are to be idealistic about it.

Money makes us happy? I don't think so.

Take a look at this article from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/15/depression-world-rate-forbeslife-cx_avd_0216depressed.html).

Picture the countries battling the highest rates of depression, and you probably think of those that are developing or poor.

Think again.

The U.S. tops the list, with 9.6% of the population experiencing bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder or chronic minor depression over the course of a year. That's compared with a .8% rate documented in Nigeria. The findings are part of a 2004 study of 14 countries by researchers from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Harvard Medical School.

Or, as Edward Arlington Robinson said,

Richard Cory

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean-favoured and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good Morning!" and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich, yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine -- we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked and waited for the light,
And went without the meat and cursed the bread,
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet in his head.

Money makes us happy? I don't think so.
Exactly how many people in Nigeria do you expect to get diagnosed with clinical depression, or bipolar disorder? The doctors there have enough on their plates trying to stop people from dying from Malaria.

Exactly how many people in Nigeria do you expect to get diagnosed with clinical depression, or bipolar disorder? The doctors there have enough on their plates trying to stop people from dying from Malaria.

The point was not that Nigeria is particularly happy, but that the United States is particularly not.

The point was not that Nigeria is particularly happy, but that the United States is particularly not.
Well . . .

Most Americans Happy, New Poll Says

A new poll conducted by the Gallup Organization finds that American citizens are generally happy with their lives. According to a survey of more than 1,000 Americans at least 18 years of age, a majority of Americans characterized their lives as "generally happy," while slightly more
Most Americans Happy, New Poll Says than half said they were "very happy." More than 80 percent of those polled expressed satisfaction with their personal lives while a slight majority said their lives were "very" satisfying. Gallup notes that the poll's findings differ significantly from the opinions of Americans when asked about the state of the union as a whole.

When asked if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their personal lives, 84 percent of respondents answered "satisfied," with nearly 60 percent of those further characterizing their personal lives as very satisfying. A full quarter of satisfied respondents said their personal lives were "somewhat" satisfying. According to Gallup, the percentage of satisfied Americans represents a small increase over last year's result.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515155/most_americans_happy_new_poll_says.html

Well . . .

The rates of depression speak for themselves.

As does your consistent habit of ignoring posts.

. Or the fact that you can express yourself, travel, run for office, hear opposing views and be educated, all freely and free from government domination. Those are among the many luxuries that Cubans do not enjoy.

Well actually they are educated, which is a point up on how they were under 'capitalism', or at least the form of it the US backed there. You seem to be constantly comparing what its like for US citizens to what its been like for Latin Americans under the supposedly 'free market'. If the latter weren't being royally fucked over, they never would have turned to the extreme left in the first place.

Well actually they are educated, which is a point up on how they were under 'capitalism', or at least the form of it the US backed there.
"Or the fact that you can express yourself, travel, run for office, hear opposing views and be educated, all freely and free from government domination."

Awkward phrasing aside, education in Cuba is highly partisan, and consists of extreme marxist brainwashing. This is a known fact.


Quote:
Strong ideological content is present. Educational and cultural policy is based on Marxist ideology. A file is kept on children's "revolutionary integration" and it accompanies the child for life.[119] University options will depend on how well the person is integrated to Marxist ideology[119] as well as a permission from the "Committee for the Defense of the Revolution".[120] The Code for Children, Youth and Family states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison.[119]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Education

...So that Haiti is fucked up is Capitalism's fault? It couldn't be the fault of ridiculously shitty leadership Haiti has had, the corruption, instability and domestic coups . . . or the extreme authoritarianism that forced many of the few educated the country has to flee to America, Canada and France instead of remaining in Haiti . . . . ?


Unless of course you'd like to explain to me how it's capitalism's fault. I'd love to hear that. :)

I wouldn't say it was capitalism's fault. But I would say that USian intervention in Haiti definitely made things worse for Haiti. In 1802, Napolelon sent 22,000 troops to put down the slave revolt. The US, in their role as protector of the New World from European interests, did nothing. The Haitians won anyways. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

France sues Haiti for reparations. The US backs them, and puts warships into Haitian waters to stress the point. Gunboat diplomacy at its clearest. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

1915. The Marines land and seize Haiti, declaring Haitians unfit to rule themselves. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

Until 1957. we have a string of different puppets installed by the US. Some good. Some bad. Few as interesting as Papa Doc Duvalier, whose violent excesses with his Tonton Macoutes were for given and sometimes supported by the US because of their anticommunism and willingness to kill anyone who wanted to organise a trade union. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

His dynasty and despotism lasted until 1986 when his son, Baby Doc, was tossed out by the Haitians. I guess the US Marines that were on loan to his dad went home when Papa died. They finally have some clearly democratic elections in 1990. Back to where they were in 1802, before US intervention. Hopefully it'll go better this time. A year later, Aristide is overthrown in a military coup. As thousands flee, President Bush Sr. imposes a trade embargo on Haiti, to stem the influx of blacks, I assume.

But this time the US intervenes to put Aristide back into power! Thanks for the intervention, yanquis! But he can only serve the rest of his term, less than a year. WTF? Thanks for the intervention, yanquis?

Meanwhile, US supported militias (not terrorists or death squads or anything like that) were conducting raids from the Dominican Republic. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis. When Aristide asked for help, the US refused. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

Aristide’s presidency ended on Feb. 29 when U.S. uniformed personnel removed him from the presidential residence at gunpoint and flew him to the Central African Republic. (http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_94.shtml)

...Haiti's economic condition will only improve when it (and only Haiti can do this) stabilizes itself, educates itself and becomes safe and open enough for real foreign investment. Until that day, Haiti will be the broken nation it has been for the foreseeable future.

I hope that by now, you will see that whenever Haiti has attempted to stabilise itself, US intervention has done its best to destabilise the island.

The point was not that Nigeria is particularly happy, but that the United States is particularly not.
But my point is that the incidence at which your particular measure of unhappiness is picked up is positively related to wealth. So of course wealthier countries will appear more unhappy, and that includes the US.

If you wanted to make this point using these measures, you shouldn't compare the US to Nigeria, you should compare it to other rich countries, and control for whatever other US-specific variables (for example the tendency to ascribe every personal problem to a cause that can be treated with meds...).

If you wanted to make this point using these measures, you shouldn't compare the US to Nigeria, you should compare it to other rich countries, and control for whatever other US-specific variables (for example the tendency to ascribe every personal problem to a cause that can be treated with meds...).

This would completely be away from the objective of determining happiness relation to wealth though.

And GoG, don't hold your breath expecting TAI to even acknowledge your post. He loves death squads, bloodshed and murder when it furthers American interests.

This would completely be away from the objective of determining happiness relation to wealth though.
Indeed. Which tells us that these kind of statistics just aren't suited to answering these questions. Hence why there are researchers writing a career worth of papers trying to figure out ways of measuring these things and actually establishing the degree to which this kind of relationship exists.

"Or (....)[/url]

....which evades the point that they were even worse off under the regime the US backed, just as elsewhere in Latin America. Hence the somewhat unsuprising phenomena of 'revolution' and extreme left wing views emerging. Rather than offering an alternative, the US backed the status quo while not addressing the causes, thus entrenching such beliefs. As a result, we see the re-emergence of populist leftism in recent years.

....which evades the point that they were even worse off under the regime the US backed, just as elsewhere in Latin America. Hence the somewhat unsuprising phenomena of 'revolution' and extreme left wing views emerging. Rather than offering an alternative, the US backed the status quo while not addressing the causes, thus entrenching such beliefs. As a result, we see the re-emergence of populist leftism in recent years.

I believe TAI subscribes to an extreme McCarthyist school of thought where anything, torture, murder, appalling quality of life, perhaps even genocide, though I've not seen him go that far just yet, is just, indeed, to be desired, if it is in opposition to communism and/or the personal enrichment of the United States of America.

He simply avoids the question of blood spilled by either closing his eyes or indicating that it is necessary in the pursuit of above while dressing it up.

I wouldn't say it was capitalism's fault. But I would say that USian intervention in Haiti definitely made things worse for Haiti. In 1802, Napolelon sent 22,000 troops to put down the slave revolt. The US, in their role as protector of the New World from European interests, did nothing. The Haitians won anyways. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

France sues Haiti for reparations. The US backs them, and puts warships into Haitian waters to stress the point. Gunboat diplomacy at its clearest. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

1915. The Marines land and seize Haiti, declaring Haitians unfit to rule themselves. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

Until 1957. we have a string of different puppets installed by the US. Some good. Some bad. Few as interesting as Papa Doc Duvalier, whose violent excesses with his Tonton Macoutes were for given and sometimes supported by the US because of their anticommunism and willingness to kill anyone who wanted to organise a trade union. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

His dynasty and despotism lasted until 1986 when his son, Baby Doc, was tossed out by the Haitians. I guess the US Marines that were on loan to his dad went home when Papa died. They finally have some clearly democratic elections in 1990. Back to where they were in 1802, before US intervention. Hopefully it'll go better this time. A year later, Aristide is overthrown in a military coup. As thousands flee, President Bush Sr. imposes a trade embargo on Haiti, to stem the influx of blacks, I assume.

But this time the US intervenes to put Aristide back into power! Thanks for the intervention, yanquis! But he can only serve the rest of his term, less than a year. WTF? Thanks for the intervention, yanquis?

Meanwhile, US supported militias (not terrorists or death squads or anything like that) were conducting raids from the Dominican Republic. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis. When Aristide asked for help, the US refused. Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

Aristide’s presidency ended on Feb. 29 when U.S. uniformed personnel removed him from the presidential residence at gunpoint and flew him to the Central African Republic. (http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_94.shtml)
1. Please do not use "USian", as it's not a legitimate adjective to describe things of the United States of America. It's not the word we choose for ourselves.

2. All you've done is show that, throughout the history of Haiti, America has intervened in order to promote stability.

3. None of this shows how capitalism is to blame, which is the original point that Non Aligned States was trying to make, though it is noted that you disagreed with him.

But my point is that the incidence at which your particular measure of unhappiness is picked up is positively related to wealth. So of course wealthier countries will appear more unhappy, and that includes the US.

If you wanted to make this point using these measures, you shouldn't compare the US to Nigeria, you should compare it to other rich countries

France, Netherlands and Spain were on the list as were others. It wasn't just the US and Nigeria.

and control for whatever other US-specific variables (for example the tendency to ascribe every personal problem to a cause that can be treated with meds...).

That tendency to ascribe every personal problem to causes that can be treated with medication is itself another measure of how, despite our gobs of wealth, the US isn't automatically happy as a result.

I am simply arguing that money doesn't equate to happiness nor can it buy happiness. This isn't a controversial argument.

It's obvious that many here are critical of the Right-Wing intervention by America, but my next question is if those who preach soveriegnty are also critical of the Left-Wing internventionism practiced by Cuba / Che Guevara in, for example, Congo, Angola, Bolivia, El Salvador and Grenada?

Your next 'question' is nothing but a setup for accusations of hypocrisy.

It's obvious that many here are critical of the Right-Wing intervention by America, but my next question is if those who preach soveriegnty are also critical of the Left-Wing internventionism practiced by Cuba / Che Guevara in, for example, Congo, Angola, Bolivia, El Salvador and Grenada?

Did he try to prop up any dictators, kill civilians or seek to undermine the human rights of the peoples of those countries? Serious question, I honestly don't know that much about him.

1. Please do not use "USian", as it's not a legitimate adjective to describe things of the United States of America. It's not the word we choose for ourselves.

I find it useful in discussions wherein we discuss the USA and the rest of the Americas, like this one. Since we are discussing the relationship between the USA and almost all of the rest of the Americas, it would be confusing to use the word 'American'.

2. All you've done is show that, throughout the history of Haiti, America has intervened in order to promote stability.

I didn't realise funding cross-border paramilitary raids that threaten a democratic government was considered 'stabilising'. Or supporting a voodoo witch doctor's reign of terror.

3. None of this shows how capitalism is to blame, which is the original point that Non Aligned States was trying to make, though it is noted that you disagreed with him.

But it does show how USian intervention is to blame for the current instability in Haiti.

It's obvious that many here are critical of the Right-Wing intervention by America, but my next question is if those who preach soveriegnty are also critical of the Left-Wing internventionism practiced by Cuba / Che Guevara in, for example, Congo, Angola, Bolivia, El Salvador and Grenada?

The main difference is that Cuba sent soldiers and supplies when the locals asked for it, while the US sent soldiers with guns whenever they (the US government of the time) felt like it.

Did he try to prop up any dictators, kill civilians or seek to undermine the human rights of the peoples of those countries? Serious question, I honestly don't know that much about him.
Well I meant Cuba and / or Che Guevara . . . as sometimes they worked together while other times not.

But let's check it out:
In Congo, things were really quite awful...it was a bloody civil war and when the rebels were losing against the Congolese government (which was supported by the U.S. and Belgium) the rebels started taking [notably white] civilian hostages and executing them. This hostage taking and executing of civilians was stopped (but not totally prevented) by American military troops. A few months later, Che Guevara and a few Cuban troops shipped off to Cuba in order to lead said rebels (the ones taking civilian hostages and executing them) in their fight against the Congolese government. (Guevara and the rebels ultimately lost)

In Angola, the Cuban forces (and Guevara) intervened and worked with /supported the Angolan MPLA and subsequent government. Human Rights Watch has this to say.

Human Rights Watch estimates MPLA and the government employed more than 6,000 and 3,000 child soldiers respectively, some forcibly impressed, during the war. Human rights analysts found 5,000 to 8,000 underage girls married to MPLA militants. Some girls were ordered to go and forage for food to provide for the troops. If the girls did not bring back enough food as judged by their commander, then the girls would not eat. After victories, MPLA commanders would be rewarded with women who were often then sexually abused. The government and U.N. agencies identified 190 child soldiers in the Angolan army and relocated 70 of them by November 2002, but the government continued to knowingly employ other underage soldiers.[144]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War#Legacy

Also, in Angola, this is what the outcome was of the 'victory' of the Cuban/Soviet backed forces:

The devastating civil war lasted several decades and claimed millions of lives and refugees in independent Angola.[44]

The former colony became worse off after independence than it had been during Portuguese rule. The deterioration in central planning effectiveness, economic development and growth, security, education and health system efficiency was rampant. Like the other newly-independent African territories involved in the Portuguese Colonial War, Angola sank to the bottom of human development and GDP per capita world tables. After a few years, the former colonies had reached high levels of corruption, poverty, inequality and social imbalance. A level of economic development comparable to what had existed under Portuguese rule became a major goal for the governments of the independent territory. The sharp recession and the chaos in many areas of Angolan life eroded the initial impetus of nationalistic fervor. There were also eruptions of black racism in the former overseas province, through the use of hatred against both white and mulatto Angolans.[45]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_War_of_Independence#Aftermath

In Bolivia, Guevara was working with extreme-left revolutionaries to undermine the democratically elected President Barrientos, who, after removing the former President from power due to the former President amending the constitution in order to stay in power, resigned his position as President of the coup-government and allowed free elections to take place, which he won. It was under this freely elected government that Guevara was working in the hills of Bolivia towards violent revolution, and it was under this freely elected government that Guevara was found and rightfully executed.


In Grenada, there was a coup where Maurice Bishop ousted a democratic government and then formed a leftist regime that suspended the constitution and ruled by decree, which was supported by Cuba.

In El Salvador:

October 1979, a coup d'état brought Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador to power. It nationalized many private companies and took over much privately owned land. However, groups allied with the Communists demanded ever greater collectivism and launched a military campaign against the Duarte government - this resulted in the Salvadoran Civil War (1980-1992).

The Salvadoran Civil War was predominantly fought between the government of El Salvador and a coalition of four leftist groups and one communist group known as the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), mainly between 1980 and 1992. Approximately 75,000 people were killed in the war.[5] The Salvadoran Civil war happened in the context of the Cold War, with Cuba and the USSR backing the Marxist-Leninist militias and the Ronald Reagan administration backing the Salvadoran government.


As for Che himself, he was a known executioner, and exucuted many whom he claimed were 'unloyal to the revolution'.

For example: In a six-month period, Guevara implemented Castro’s orders with zeal, putting 180 prisoners in front of the firing squad after summary trials, according to Machover. Jose Vilasuso, an exiled lawyer, recalled Guevara instructing his “court” in the prison: “Don’t drag out the process. This is a revolution. Don’t use bourgeois legal methods, the proof is secondary. We must act through conviction. We’re dealing with a bunch of criminals and assassins.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece


Your next 'question' is nothing but a setup for accusations of hypocrisy.
Afraid of trying on the shoe and finding that it fits just right?

I find it useful in discussions wherein we discuss the USA and the rest of the Americas, like this one. Since we are discussing the relationship between the USA and almost all of the rest of the Americas, it would be confusing to use the word 'American'.
Confusing? That's quite unfortunate for you if that confuses you.


I didn't realise funding cross-border paramilitary raids that threaten a democratic government was considered 'stabilising'. Or supporting a voodoo witch doctor's reign of terror.
Do you now?


But it does show how USian intervention is to blame for the current instability in Haiti.
Who's intervention? Please, don't use that word. You're not even talking about Latin-American right now, so it shouldnt be 'confusing' . . .


The main difference is that Cuba sent soldiers and supplies when the locals asked for it, while the US sent soldiers with guns whenever they (the US government of the time) felt like it.
Or that often times, like in Bolivia or in Congo, (examples I used of Cuban/Che intervention) the people whom these governments were fighting asked for American assistance to help put down these revolutions.

Well, in that case I'd be completely against Che's intervention in those conflicts, and I'd reckon most of those on the left would be against it as well.

Well, in that case I'd be completely against Che's intervention in those conflicts, and I'd reckon most of those on the left would be against it as well.
Fair enough then.

Afraid of trying on the shoe and finding that it fits just right?

Just unwilling to participate in your amateurish and increasingly desperate attempts to ad hominem your way through this thread, like an angry, sweating bull. It's petty, unreasonable, and boring.

Confusing? That's quite unfortunate for you if that confuses you.

I didn't say I was confused. I said it would be confusing.

Do you now?

Do I now what? Do I accept your contradictory definition of 'stabilising'? No. Of course not. Using military power to directly destablise democracy in Haiti is not stablising. Ergo, the US was not a stabilising influence with their interventions.

Who's intervention? Please, don't use that word. You're not even talking about Latin-American right now, so it shouldnt be 'confusing' . . .

Rather than nitpick over the use of words that you may or may not like, could you actually address my points?

Or that often times, like in Bolivia or in Congo, (examples I used of Cuban/Che intervention) the people whom these governments were fighting asked for American assistance to help put down these revolutions.

Congo: the US supported the Mubutu coup against democraticaly elected president Kasavubu. Che and his fighters upported the Rebels who were supporting Kasavubu. This supposed (but unsourced) killing of white hostages (because other hostages are unimportant to TAI, apparently) had nothing to do with Che.

Angola: Unless you can show how any of Angola's problems have anything to do with Cuban intervention, I will assume that all your complaints are just a distraction from the unsuccessful nature of USian intervention in Angola.

Bolivia: Barrientos also enacted a coup against a democratically elected president (with USian help), then exiled anyone who could have stood against him, and then called elections. And of couse, he won. The insurgency supported by Guevara also had the support of the rural people, who openly supported the insurgency. This is why Barientos had them shot. Please google the Massacre of San Juan.

El Salvador was a horrible dictatorship before the civil war. The war started with the assasination of Archbishop Romero, who was killed for doing things like asking the US to stop supporting the dictatorship. He was killed by Roberto D'Aubuisson. His support from USian politicos was not exactly covert:

On December 5, 1984, at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C., US conservative lobbyists awarded D’Aubuisson a plaque honoring his "continuing efforts for freedom in the face of Communist aggression, which is an inspiration to freedom-loving people everywhere." The closed-door dinner, for 120 people, was given by the National Council for Better Education, and co-sponsored by the Free Congress Foundation, ...Gun Owners of America, ...United States Defense Committee, American Foreign Policy Council...The Washington Times...Former US ambassador Faith Ryan Whittlesey, then an assistant to US President Ronald Reagan, took part in the presentation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_D%27Aubuisson

So, the US were probably responsible for starting the ElSalvadorian civil war.

Thanks for the intervention, yanquis.

2. All you've done is show that, throughout the history of Haiti, America has intervened in order to promote stability.

Promoting stability is not always a good thing. Germany was stable under Hitler.

@The Atlantian islands,

Did you ever visit a communist country and Cuba in special?

Promoting stability is not always a good thing. Germany was stable under Hitler.

Indeed, an orderly state can be obtained by most brutal means. Chile under Pinochet, for instance.

(I note he keeps ignoring my posts. I must be hitting a nail or two on the head.)

What I think is important to remember is that US interventionism did not change when the Cold War arose. The US was intervening heavily in Latin America, to the very best of its ability, through the entire 20th century.

It has been largely successful in advancing US short-term "strategic" and particularly corporate interests. It has been largely unsuccessful in having a long-term positive effect, has done incalculable damage to the moral and social standing of the United States in the eyes of its neighbors, and has by and large not benefited the average American.

Confusing? That's quite unfortunate for you if that confuses you.
I very much agree with his point. As a citizen of the United States, I find USian perfectly appropriate, especially when discussing politics within the Americas.

what i think is important to remember is that us interventionism did not change when the cold war arose. The us was intervening heavily in latin america, to the very best of its ability, through the entire 20th century.

It has been largely successful in advancing us short-term "strategic" and particularly corporate interests. It has been largely unsuccessful in having a long-term positive effect, has done incalculable damage to the moral and social standing of the united states in the eyes of its neighbors, and has by and large not benefited the average american.


qft.

I believe TAI subscribes to an extreme McCarthyist school of thought where anything, torture, murder, appalling quality of life, perhaps even genocide, though I've not seen him go that far just yet, is just, indeed, to be desired, if it is in opposition to communism and/or the personal enrichment of the United States of America.

And history shows us that Tailgunner Joe only really latched onto Anti-Communism as his Cry Wolf ticket to fame.

I very much agree with his point. As a citizen of the United States, I find USian perfectly appropriate, especially when discussing politics within the Americas.

I disagree, as a citizen of the United States of America, I find the term 'USian' to be an insult to all things American. It sounds retarded and is a lame attempt at political correctness. I'd rather people use the term US to refer to the United States instead. But to each their own.

I am simply arguing that money doesn't equate to happiness nor can it buy happiness. This isn't a controversial argument.
Which doesn't say a thing about whether or not it's actually correct.

I think Amartya Sen makes a bunch of good points on this issue. Measuring well-being in terms of things like GDP is inaccurate, so he suggests we consider people's actual capability to do something instead. Difficult to measure, yes, but certainly more valid.

But if you do that, it stands to reason that with more wealth, greater opportunities and capabilities are likely to follow. So although great wealth doesn't lead to well-being, not having it probably leads to less well-being.

Whatever the hypothesis though, the data you were using to illustrate just will not do the job.

What I think is important to remember is that US interventionism did not change when the Cold War arose. The US was intervening heavily in Latin America, to the very best of its ability, through the entire 20th century.

It has been largely successful in advancing US short-term "strategic" and particularly corporate interests. It has been largely unsuccessful in having a long-term positive effect, has done incalculable damage to the moral and social standing of the United States in the eyes of its neighbors, and has by and large not benefited the average American.

I don't think it was ever meant to benefit the average US citizen. As Pable Neruda once said,"the North American enemies of my people are also the enemies of the North American people," and he had a point beyond simple poetics. Latin America was the resource and labour bank that was turned into commodities that were sold to the developed world. The US citizen (or Canadian or French or other denizen of the First World) was only there to open their wallets to pay for the interventions and buy the products of said interventions.

IMHO, Usa is a far better country as Cuba, if you have some money.

But if you are poor then you are better off in Cuba.

In terms of the safest from the threat of violence, Cuba is ranked as 7th out of the 23 Central and South American nations.

For comparison, Cuba is ranked 68th worldwide. The USA is ranked 83rd.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

But if you are poor then you are better off in Cuba.
Not necessarily. The housing situation in the cities is absolutely shit. There are not enough government-provided apartments, and officially people are forbidden from renting out extra space in their own. So there are a lot of fake extended families there because it's the only way you're allowed to have others in your apartment - and the alternative is not being able to live in the city (obviously the police isn't keen on homeless people, they cart them out pretty quick).

In terms of the safest from the threat of violence, Cuba is ranked as 7th out of the 23 Central and South American nations.

For comparison, Cuba is ranked 68th worldwide. The USA is ranked 83rd.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

That source is complete and utter bullshit because it doesn't take into mind that many of these societies (like Cuba) are totalitarian police states, which maintain 'saftey' by completely removing freedom.

As my example, North Korea is ranked better than Russia and Israel . . . which is because in North Korea, there may not be street violence because of the nature of the police state, but it says nothing about safety (or lack there of) from the govermment.

Israeli is alot safer to live in than North Korea, if you are concerned about being safe from the government, which has a monoply on violence. In North Korea you are much more likely to be put in a concentration camp for offending the government. That may be 'saftey' in the most basic way according to your source, but that source is illegitimate in this debate.

Remember, the Soviet Union was also extremely 'safe'. I reviewed your ranking, and dismissed it.

Not necessarily. The housing situation in the cities is absolutely shit. There are not enough government-provided apartments, and officially people are forbidden from renting out extra space in their own. So there are a lot of fake extended families there because it's the only way you're allowed to have others in your apartment - and the alternative is not being able to live in the city (obviously the police isn't keen on homeless people, they cart them out pretty quick).
Not to mention the food shortages and power 'failures' (or whatever the government is choosing to call them) that Cuba suffers from. Plus the lack of freedom of information for poor, non-elite Cubans.

I don't think it was ever meant to benefit the average US citizen. As Pable Neruda once said,"the North American enemies of my people are also the enemies of the North American people," and he had a point beyond simple poetics. Latin America was the resource and labour bank that was turned into commodities that were sold to the developed world. The US citizen (or Canadian or French or other denizen of the First World) was only there to open their wallets to pay for the interventions and buy the products of said interventions.
You just proved yourself wrong.

You stated that the American people didn't benefit from these practices, but then concluded that, at the end of the process, the American consumer got to buy said products (at a fairly lower price I might add) . . . so, it benefited them.

@The Atlantian islands,

Did you ever visit a communist country and Cuba in special?

I've visited former-Communist countries in Europe (that were highly, highly critical of Communism), but haven't made it to a current Communist country yet. (There aren't that many left, thank God)

I am meaning to get to Cuba soon, though.

I disagree, as a citizen of the United States of America, I find the term 'USian' to be an insult to all things American. It sounds retarded and is a lame attempt at political correctness. I'd rather people use the term US to refer to the United States instead. But to each their own.
"United States" is much more descriptive than "America." "American" is terribly, terribly vague. USian is much more specific, and there's nothing insulting about it - it's simply one of the names of our country, turned into an appropriate noun form, like "UKer" or "German."

"United States" is much more descriptive than "America." "American" is terribly, terribly vague. USian is much more specific, and there's nothing insulting about it - it's simply one of the names of our country, turned into an appropriate noun form, like "UKer" or "German."

I prefer American still, as we're the only Nation in North or South America, of which are usually referred to as the Americas, and America is now accepted as referring to the USA.

That and we'd have to rewrite a HELL of a lot of songs.

That source is complete and utter bullshit because it doesn't take into mind that many of these societies (like Cuba) are totalitarian police states, which maintain 'saftey' by completely removing freedom.....I reviewed your ranking, and dismissed it.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/cuba/2009/

If you click on the link, you will be taken to the rankings for Cuba, where you will see their scores in different categories. These categories include respect for human rights, number of people in jail, number of internal law enforcement officers, a whole section on democracy and transparency, and even a ranking on how much they respect private property (in the culture section near the bottom of the page).

In other words, it also takes into account the level of authoritarianism in each state and the risk of violence from government forces.

You just proved yourself wrong.

You stated that the American people didn't benefit from these practices, but then concluded that, at the end of the process, the American consumer got to buy said products (at a fairly lower price I might add) . . . so, it benefited them.

Your argument only makes sense if the profits were passed on to the consumer, which was not the case. From the quote below, we can see that the price paid for coffee (just one of many commodities from Latin America sold in the USA) increased for USian consumers, and the price paid by multinational coffee companies to Latin American producers decreased.

Coffee is the world's second-most-valuable commodity exporting by developing countries, after oil. The global coffee industry earns an estimated $60 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of those earnings end up in the hands of coffee farmers. (Thanks for the intervention, yanquis)

Profits for coffee-producing countries have declined dramatically. In 1985, for example, 38 cents of every dollar spent on coffee in the United States returned to producing countries. By 1995, that share dropped to 23 cents -- a 40 percent fall.

During the same period, the price consumers paid for their coffee increased by more than 30 percent.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/guatemala.mexico/facts.html

Obviously, the profits were not passed to the consumer.

(I note he keeps ignoring my posts. I must be hitting a nail or two on the head.)

He'll ignore anything about Pinochet unless you're showering him with praise.

He'll ignore anything about Pinochet unless you're showering him with praise.


...wouldn't 'shower' him if he was on fire....

...wouldn't 'shower' him if he was on fire....

Oh I would. Only to re-light it again and again.

"United States" is much more descriptive than "America." "American" is terribly, terribly vague. USian is much more specific, and there's nothing insulting about it - it's simply one of the names of our country, turned into an appropriate noun form, like "UKer" or "German."

No, it really isn't that terribly vague. There are only three countries that comprise the North American mainland and only one nation out of those three has 'America' at the end of it's name. All of the other nations in North America are either small, or island nations. None of which use the term 'America' in their official name like the United States does.

Who actually refers to United States citizens as 'USians' in the real world? Foreign governments certainly don't use the term and neither do most other people. The only place I've seen this retarded phrase being used is on Nationstates forums. So no, it is typically not one of the names people use to refer to our country. If they don't use the term 'American' then they opt to use the term 'US' instead.

While you might lower yourself to wanting to be called a 'USian' (which in and of itself is a mockery) I don't. There was even a thread on here asking whether 'USian' was a suitable replacement for 'American' and people resoundingly voted no.

Yes, it's the consequences of movements in market prices. One went one way, the other went the other way, both of them went against Haiti.

It's so very easy to come around all high and mighty and blame "agribusiness" and whatever else.

It's kinda harder to actually think about feasible solutions. Hence, when there's an actual thread with actual facts (http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=571011), no one responds.

It was a four-thousand word essay without a clear debating point. And when you DID respond, no debate ensued ...

==========

No, it really isn't that terribly vague. There are only three countries that comprise the North American mainland and only one nation out of those three has 'America' at the end of it's name. All of the other nations in North America are either small, or island nations.
Canada is almost the same size as the US. Oops, you forgot Canada again.

Who actually refers to United States citizens as 'USians' in the real world?

That isn't the way the term is being used in this thread. It is used in the sense "of the US" ... can you think of some way of referring to US foreign policy which is accurate but uses only the term "United States citizens"?

While you might lower yourself to wanting to be called a 'USian' (which in and of itself is a mockery) I don't. There was even a thread on here asking whether 'USian' was a suitable replacement for 'American' and people resoundingly voted no.

58% voted no, actually. And that was for the blanket usage of USian instead of American, not this specific case where USians need to be differentiated from other residents of the Americas.

Furthermore, there are clear mod rulings that the term is not in itself derogatory. Getting upset about its use is just a waste of your energy.

Canada is almost the same size as the US. Oops, you forgot Canada again.

Only I didn't. Canada is among the main three nations in North America that I was implying. Namely, Canada, United States, and Mexico. Also, Canada is bigger than the United States in land mass but is not as powerful. Read my words more closely next time.

That isn't the way the term is being used in this thread. It is used in the sense "of the US" ... can you think of some way of referring to US foreign policy which is accurate but uses only the term "United States citizens"?

I'd prefer people use the term US to refer to the United States. My point being is that I wouldn't call someone from the UK a 'UKian' I'd call that person 'British'. However if 'USian' really is acceptible then I will use my own terms for other countries rather than using official demonyms like I do now.

58% voted no, actually. And that was for the blanket usage of USian instead of American, not this specific case where USians need to be differentiated from other residents of the Americas.

I don't generally refer to groups of people by continent but rather by country. I use nationalities to refer to groups of people and believe in North and South America being different continents, so I guess I wouldn't understand your point of view. Point taken.

Furthermore, there are clear mod rulings that the term is not in itself derogatory. Getting upset about its use is just a waste of your energy.

That's fine then. I didn't know about the mod rulings so I will no longer oppose the term, but it does annoy me. I will take solace in the fact that thankfully, it isn't used much in real life.

Only I didn't. Canada is among the main three nations in North America that I was implying. Namely, Canada, United States, and Mexico. Also, Canada is bigger than the United States in land mass but is not as powerful. Read my words more closely next time.

Fair enough.

I'd prefer people use the term US to refer to the United States. My point being is that I wouldn't call someone from the UK a 'UKian' I'd call that person 'British'.

That is problematic. If the person is from Scotland, England or Wales it would be accurate. If they are from the other country of the UK (Northern Ireland) they might feel excluded by the term ... it's the same issue really, the three biggest countries of their union are on the same land-mass.

"Great" Britain refers to the runty little island the three biggest countries are on, not to the former glory of Britain as an empire. :wink:

I don't generally refer to groups of people by continent but rather by country. I use nationalities to refer to groups of people and believe in North and South America being different continents, so I guess I wouldn't understand your point of view.

There are some circumstances when it make sense to group nationalities together and apply a "continental" term though, wouldn't you say? "Asian economies" or "European culture" are useful generalizations ... as indeed is the generalization of "nationality."

I'm actually Australian, and we're lucky in this. The continent and the country are the same thing ... I suppose the very few residents of islands which are Australian territory might someday object but I haven't heard that yet. Just like the Americas, our continent name was decided long before there was an accurate map of our coastline ... and we don't have to share that historical claim to the name with any other country.

That's fine then. I didn't know about the mod rulings so I will no longer oppose the term, but it does annoy me. I will take solace in the fact that thankfully, it isn't used much in real life.

I don't like the term either. When spelled out Yooessian it lacks dignity, and if not spelled out it is an awkward mixture of acronym and word ... but I do actually use it as an out-loud word if necessary to disambiguate. I pronounce it "yooessian."

I think henceforth I will use "US-American" as the collective noun. Hopefully that doesn't offend anyone.

It's stuff like what the US did in South America that made me sigh when Bush talked about America "Exporting Democracy".

You know someone needs to add to the dictonary under "Exporting Democracy"

Exporting Democracy- When one nation overthrows another in order to replace it's leader with a more willing puppet.


"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds

Wow, nothing like saying "You only exist because WE want you too." to an entire Continent. It's even worse when you realize that we more or less kept that policy until... Oh wait we still are keeping that policy.

Is it any wonder why half the world hates the US?

Anecdotally,it was the US in Latin America that shattered the idea of the US as a force for good for many of us......You could bullshit the way through fighting 'communism' in the form of Russia, but when you're out there killing farmers, priests and nuns even the child I was saw it as bollocks.