| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Summit of the Americas
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Summit of the Americas

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 02:40
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


I know that Penguin.

It was in response to " and white settlement/land theft or you think the nearest white country should rule over the land"




OK. I also found very that commentary very out of place.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 05:08
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain V, You of course raise some valid points, but you do realize that the United States was not backing Batista, and indeed had cut off all military aid to Cuba. At the time, no small number of Americans who cared about Cuba supported Castro, who had Ernest Hemingway in his corner.

Yes, the United States had intervened numerous time in the Caribbean and Central America, usually at the behest of one party to a local feud. Yes, it was paternalistic, even though the interventions often benefited the common people with infrastructure projects paid for by income that was not being siphoned off by local elites. Some historians note that once the Marines departed, the infrastructure soon fell apart, money dried up, and poverty got worse. But the U.S. ended its Banana Wars in 1933. 
They did send warships to Cuba that year over the Machado incident, but that would hardly justify Fidel's tenure in power. 

Is it possible that Fidel is right? That the Cubans are incapable of self-government and need a caudillo to guide them along the correct path? Hmmm.

As to the Falklands, you are correct in regards to Argentina. however I believe the original question was directed to the statements of solidarity from the other LA governments, many of whom have border disputes of their own, all of which date back to the colonial era. And taht was the question I was replying to. But yes, these nationalizations smack of the Peron era, which bankrupted a country which had been ahead of the U.S. in 1900. The lure of populism and the scent of "free" money.
 
 
This brings up some curious imagery Mr L. Big hearted engineers just trying to build bridges and power stations, at a loss to understand why they are being shot at. Or more currently, American backpackers sewing on the maple leaf flag to avoid unsavory incidents as they travel through the region. It would seem to defy logic, given your slant on history.
 
To be fair, nothing is absolute. Britain, for example, ran roughshod over its colonies, although in the end tried to leave something of value behind also, with mixed success. So to with the US, during its brief but enthusiastic time as colonial power, but the significant point here is that the original purpose was to run roughshod.
 
If you are trying to suggest that America's purpose for intervention in Latin America was about being reluctantly drawn in to local disputes that were divorced from US interests, or that they were primarily a kind of foreign aid program, designed for building infrastructure, or that America recoiled in horror the minute the naughty acts of someone like Batista became widely known, then I congratulate you- on your wry sense of humour.
 
FDR may have ended the expilcit, send in the marines and teach those dagos a lession type of intervention, but the attempt at hegemony continued, with the CIA backed coup in Chile, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, and the Reagan Hollywood style event in Grenada being just a sprinkling of events that come to mind.
 
Cuba was virtually an American protectorite from the Spanish American War until the '59 revolution. Ownership of the economy, and influence in political events was massive, in ways that were widely resented, as it turns out. If Batista was dropped as the favoured boy at the eleventh hour, that hardly makes up for a half century of history, does it? There is also a certain irony in your observation of the lack of democracy in Cuba. In a number of cases in the region, democracy was been vigorously suppressed by the US, if the voters in question made the "wrong" decision with their ballots. Maybe Castro understood that too open a society would be like an invitation card for CIA operatives, who were problematic enough as it was.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 12:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

My estimate is that you are both off track. The Falklands issue has nothing to do with inherited land claims, nor colonial "bullying". It has everything to do with the perennial dysfunction of the Argentine government, which has short-changed its citizens numerous times over the years, and is doing so again. It is deflecting criticism by again striking out at items it considers iconic, and hence an easy escape from harder realities. Their latest (aside from the Falklands nonsense) antic is to "bully" Repsol, the Spanish firm they nationalized, in the hope that it can buy some time, and escape reality for a bit longer. This is government by way of three ring circus.


Your estimate is wrong.

The perennial arrogancy of Britain, which still believe it is a great superpower, it is the only obstacle for resolving the problem.

He has completely nailed it, although it's not surprising you fail to see it. Let's try another approach: do you not see anything funny in the fact that the Argentine government only starts fretting over the Falklands when their internal problems start going over the top and the population start losing faith in them? Normally, internal unity and solid support is a requirement when you start beating the jingoism; if the opposite is the case the chances are big you are playing the unite-against-the-foreign-devil card.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 12:54
Argentineans haven't never stop thinking about the Malvinas. That's something persistent on time. As persistent as the humilliation Spaniards feel about the robbery of Gibraltar.

Britain (in the Spanish Speaking world at least) is known as a superpower that started as a cave of pirates and slave traders. And that's the image still persist in here, I am afraid.


Edited by pinguin - 21 Apr 2012 at 12:54
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 13:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Argentineans haven't never stop thinking about the Malvinas. That's something persistent on time. As persistent as the humilliation Spaniards feel about the robbery of Gibraltar.


I was specifically talking about the government.

Quote
Britain (in the Spanish Speaking world at least) is known as a superpower that started as a cave of pirates and slave traders. And that's the image still persist in here, I am afraid.

Nonsensical prejudice is common in many nations; that is is wide-spread doesn't mean that it is correct.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 13:51
Sure; that's not the whole picture. British also exploited theirs own people in mining and manufacturing, particularly during the Industrial Revolution. 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 14:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Sure; that's not the whole picture. British also exploited theirs own people in mining and manufacturing, particularly during the Industrial Revolution. 


Deliberately missing the point, eh? You should know the idiots who actually believe in the nonsense you are spouting have their counterparts here: they see all Latino countries as based on conquest, genocide and enslavery alone.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 14:45
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Deliberately missing the point, eh? You should know the idiots who actually believe in the nonsense you are spouting have their counterparts here: they see all Latino countries as based on conquest, genocide and enslavery alone.


You were programmed at school to believe the propaganda you repeated above. So, don't be surprise we also have legends here about others.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 15:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Deliberately missing the point, eh? You should know the idiots who actually believe in the nonsense you are spouting have their counterparts here: they see all Latino countries as based on conquest, genocide and enslavery alone.


You were programmed at school to believe the propaganda you repeated above. So, don't be surprise we also have legends here about others.

Who is "you"? We didn't have any coverage whatsoever in school about South America. Where did you learn about Swedish curriculum in order to make such a statement?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 18:21
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


This brings up some curious imagery Mr L. Big hearted engineers just trying to build bridges and power stations, at a loss to understand why they are being shot at. Or more currently, American backpackers sewing on the maple leaf flag to avoid unsavory incidents as they travel through the region. It would seem to defy logic, given your slant on history.
 
If you are trying to suggest that America's purpose for intervention in Latin America was about being reluctantly drawn in to local disputes that were divorced from US interests, or that they were primarily a kind of foreign aid program, designed for building infrastructure, or that America recoiled in horror the minute the naughty acts of someone like Batista became widely known, then I congratulate you- on your wry sense of humour.
 
FDR may have ended the expilcit, send in the marines and teach those dagos a lession type of intervention, but the attempt at hegemony continued, with the CIA backed coup in Chile, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, and the Reagan Hollywood style event in Grenada being just a sprinkling of events that come to mind.
 
Cuba was virtually an American protectorite from the Spanish American War until the '59 revolution. Ownership of the economy, and influence in political events was massive, in ways that were widely resented, as it turns out. If Batista was dropped as the favoured boy at the eleventh hour, that hardly makes up for a half century of history, does it? There is also a certain irony in your observation of the lack of democracy in Cuba. In a number of cases in the region, democracy was been vigorously suppressed by the US, if the voters in question made the "wrong" decision with their ballots. Maybe Castro understood that too open a society would be like an invitation card for CIA operatives, who were problematic enough as it was.

First, the imagery is yours, not mine, and reflects your viewpoint. I'd be willing to bet that most of the construction was done by local concerns. Nor do I infer that U.S. intervention was divorced from U.S. interests. No nation does anything it does not see as being in its interest. Were they to do so, it would be a nation of fools. I believe you are conflating FDR with Wilson. Glad to see you noted that Batista had been 'dropped'. Could it be he was in power under FDR's administrations because he was viewed as a Cuban problem? And then as someone in the U.S. camp during WWII, Korea, and the Cold War? Yet Eisenhower cut off military aid to him during times of crisis (Berlin, anyone?), so someone apparently had some standards. As for Chile, yes the CIA 'backed' the coup, just as Cuba 'backed' Allende. But neither backing was the sine qua non of the coup, which arose from internal Chilean political pressures.

Yes, the Dominican invasion of 1965 was unwarranted and counterproductive, but if you're holding up Grenada as an example of U.S. intervention due to 'voters' making the 'wrong' decision, you have not paid attention to the events that led up to it. The majority of Dominicans were totally opposed to the U.S. invasion, whatever their political party, whereas the overwhelming majority of Grenadians were totally supportive of U.S. intervention. Simply put, they hadn't voted for any government since Sir Eric Gairy's had been overthrown by Maurice Bishop, who was assassinated by Bernard Coard, whose clique wanted a more radical government. Within months of the U.S. invasion, elections were held which and won by a center-left party. I was on the staff of one of the commands that invaded Grenada, by the way, and within a year began to note Grenadine flags on the vehicles of newly arriving soldiers at Fort Bragg. These were Grenadian kids who had come to the U.S. specifically to join the U.S. Armed Forces.  

Trust me, Dom Rep is a much better case to support your arguments, but unfortunately it is dated. The sequence of misjudgments, accidents and events which triggered the Dom Rep invasion are unlikely to be repeated. (Iraq, on the other hand...)
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2012 at 21:08
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


This brings up some curious imagery Mr L. Big hearted engineers just trying to build bridges and power stations, at a loss to understand why they are being shot at. Or more currently, American backpackers sewing on the maple leaf flag to avoid unsavory incidents as they travel through the region. It would seem to defy logic, given your slant on history.
 
If you are trying to suggest that America's purpose for intervention in Latin America was about being reluctantly drawn in to local disputes that were divorced from US interests, or that they were primarily a kind of foreign aid program, designed for building infrastructure, or that America recoiled in horror the minute the naughty acts of someone like Batista became widely known, then I congratulate you- on your wry sense of humour.
 
FDR may have ended the expilcit, send in the marines and teach those dagos a lession type of intervention, but the attempt at hegemony continued, with the CIA backed coup in Chile, the invasion of the Dominican Republic, and the Reagan Hollywood style event in Grenada being just a sprinkling of events that come to mind.
 
Cuba was virtually an American protectorite from the Spanish American War until the '59 revolution. Ownership of the economy, and influence in political events was massive, in ways that were widely resented, as it turns out. If Batista was dropped as the favoured boy at the eleventh hour, that hardly makes up for a half century of history, does it? There is also a certain irony in your observation of the lack of democracy in Cuba. In a number of cases in the region, democracy was been vigorously suppressed by the US, if the voters in question made the "wrong" decision with their ballots. Maybe Castro understood that too open a society would be like an invitation card for CIA operatives, who were problematic enough as it was.

First, the imagery is yours, not mine, and reflects your viewpoint. I'd be willing to bet that most of the construction was done by local concerns. Nor do I infer that U.S. intervention was divorced from U.S. interests. No nation does anything it does not see as being in its interest. Were they to do so, it would be a nation of fools. I believe you are conflating FDR with Wilson. Glad to see you noted that Batista had been 'dropped'. Could it be he was in power under FDR's administrations because he was viewed as a Cuban problem? And then as someone in the U.S. camp during WWII, Korea, and the Cold War? Yet Eisenhower cut off military aid to him during times of crisis (Berlin, anyone?), so someone apparently had some standards. As for Chile, yes the CIA 'backed' the coup, just as Cuba 'backed' Allende. But neither backing was the sine qua non of the coup, which arose from internal Chilean political pressures.
 
The point made Mr L, was that no matter what the other aspects of US interventions in the region, There was strong motivation on the part of leadership to merely do good deads, such as build needed infrastructure. My counterpoint was that this may have ocurred to an extent, but the greater reality also embraced less idealistic goals.
 
If that doesn't wash, then try this. It is 2013, and after the Obama victory, the Republican Party, curiously shifting ever more to the political right, engineers a coup d'etat. Obama may enjoy significant support, but the coup leaders feel they have a more hard-headed and pragmatic sense of power, and that democracy is sometimes not enough. The coup fails, but it is also discovered that massive foreign aid was given to the plotters from countries that had the notion they would benefit from the policies stemming from a coup victory, namely the further dispersal and dilution of the US economy. Billions in Chinese money, and the expertise of former KGB operatives were involved. How loud would the screaming be? What retribution would be enacted, or at least tried for?
 
If you can imagine the feelings in the US, then you can imagine them in Latin America. But that is exactly the problem. Many cannot make that parallel.
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Yes, the Dominican invasion of 1965 was unwarranted and counterproductive, but if you're holding up Grenada as an example of U.S. intervention due to 'voters' making the 'wrong' decision, you have not paid attention to the events that led up to it. The majority of Dominicans were totally opposed to the U.S. invasion, whatever their political party, whereas the overwhelming majority of Grenadians were totally supportive of U.S. intervention. Simply put, they hadn't voted for any government since Sir Eric Gairy's had been overthrown by Maurice Bishop, who was assassinated by Bernard Coard, whose clique wanted a more radical government. Within months of the U.S. invasion, elections were held which and won by a center-left party. I was on the staff of one of the commands that invaded Grenada, by the way, and within a year began to note Grenadine flags on the vehicles of newly arriving soldiers at Fort Bragg. These were Grenadian kids who had come to the U.S. specifically to join the U.S. Armed Forces.  
 
Yes there were some unsavory goings on in Grenada. But why invade Grenada, and not elsewhere? That's a rhetorical question of course, because we already have a pretty good idea. Predictions of election victory were not a deciding factor, as popular governments were regularly undermined, as recently as the coup attempt against Chavez in Venezula, and extending back in time some distance. Nor were threats against individual Americans enough to get the marines into the helicopters, for the most part. We do begin to see some rationale when US commercial or strategic interests, real or imagined, are taken into account. Democrat or dictator, benevolent or barbarian, these traits come second in importance to the above factors.
 
Why woud the US care about a few politicians being shot, when this sort of thing was ocurring in many parts of the world, indeed, in a few cases it was being carried out by some with US training, and financial and political backing? Reagan, a former Hollywood actor himself, was a master of the grand image. In 1983, the US had been bounced out of Vietnam, held captive in Iran, and suffered the rath of OPEC to the extent that its image was looking a little tatty. What better way to get a quick puff up than a quick military victory? And what better place to perform it in than one's own back yard, and against non-descript nutbars and criminals? Grenada was now on the short list. The piece de resistance was the fact Cubans were on the island. Communists! The bain of Mr Reagan's existence. Grenada was now number one on the list. Of course, the Cubans were building infrastructure (now there's an irony), but no matter, they were red, and so a legitimate target. There would be no communist built airports on Reagan's watch, not that close to the heartland. And so the cameras rolled.
 
There is FDR's old saying: He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. Here is a more transparent distillation of US policy in the region.
 

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Trust me, Dom Rep is a much better case to support your arguments, but unfortunately it is dated. The sequence of misjudgments, accidents and events which triggered the Dom Rep invasion are unlikely to be repeated. (Iraq, on the other hand...)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 01:26
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Who is "you"? We didn't have any coverage whatsoever in school about South America. Where did you learn about Swedish curriculum in order to make such a statement?


You didn't? Indeed. Now I know why.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 11:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You were programmed at school to believe the propaganda you repeated above.
You were programmed at school to believe the propaganda you repeated above.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 12:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Who is "you"? We didn't have any coverage whatsoever in school about South America. Where did you learn about Swedish curriculum in order to make such a statement?


You didn't? Indeed. Now I know why.




Which means you were pulling nonsense out of your behind again.


And you don't know "why" (why we didn't have any coverage): again you made some conclusion based on your prejudice.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 17:16
My dear Captain V, as to your question of: Why invade Grenada. Why not invade elsewhere?

You virtually answered your own question. Can you name any other former British Caribbean islands where the democratic vote had been denied by coups which put small radical elements in charge? This was not once, but twice. And, as you note, the Cubans were there. (Nice people, by the way. For a few days after the invasion, the only translator the 82nd Airborne Division Civil Affairs officer could find was a Cuban officer, who donned civilian clothes to assist him in his tasks)  Notwithstanding the personal affability of the Cuban engineers, the system they represented would have cemented an undemocratic regime in place.  Since you've noted Reagan's visceral anti-communism, the thing explains itself. There would be no Communist installed regimes in the Caribbean. We did because we could, and the Reagan administration intended to send a message to the world (and the American electorate) that military force was an option. And, the overwhelming majority of Grenadians supported (and benefited from) that action.











Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2012 at 22:39
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

My dear Captain V, as to your question of: Why invade Grenada. Why not invade elsewhere?
 
I guess it is your military training that gives you the techniques to try and dodge speeding bullets, Mr L, an ability which you have been able to transfer to the realm of dialogue in an admirable fashion I see.[/quote]
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

You virtually answered your own question. Can you name any other former British Caribbean islands where the democratic vote had been denied by coups which put small radical elements in charge? This was not once, but twice.
 
By narrowing things down to "former British Caribbean islands", escape from the more salient issues is avoided here. US intervention in the region has been extensive, and in a great many cases, the "democratic vote" has not been a deciding issue, from the right-wing generals in Guatemala, to the death squads in El Salvador, to the Contra guerillas in Nicaragua, to the Miami refugee/dirty tricks teams dispatched to Cuba, and much in between. The deciding issues were: Are US commercial interests threatened in any way? And, are US strategic interests, or at least perceived interests, on track with the desired course? No one gave a damn when dictators such as Somoza or Papa Doc subverted democracy, as long as they didn't buck the system. The preservation of democracy in Grenada was, sadly, yet one more example of using the cover of idealism for a more complex, and less than admirable agenda.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

And, as you note, the Cubans were there. (Nice people, by the way. For a few days after the invasion, the only translator the 82nd Airborne Division Civil Affairs officer could find was a Cuban officer, who donned civilian clothes to assist him in his tasks)  Notwithstanding the personal affability of the Cuban engineers, the system they represented would have cemented an undemocratic regime in place.  Since you've noted Reagan's visceral anti-communism, the thing explains itself. There would be no Communist installed regimes in the Caribbean.
 
An undemocratic regime. My, my. Like the one that Reagan was (secretly to a large extent) supporting in Nicaragua (the Contra efforts)? There was never any threat to the US from Grenada, whether it ultimately called itself communist, Marxist, or socialist. The object of the exercise was to shore up popular support in the US for the administration, and show the world that the US still has some cowpokes capable of handling sixguns in a menacing fashion after the last decade of downbeat events. Where Reagan made his mistake was in producing an event that would have made a great Hollywood movie, but as a geopolitical statement it was as transparent and self-serving as could be. This was an attitude shared by most of the UN, including the UK, its former colonial head. It picked for its display of ability one of the smallest micro-states in the world, in a region where it was notorious for self-serving manipulations. The weight of the US military fell on Grenada (while the rest of the world  protested), and even at that they had to call up reinforcements in order to take out a few Cuban engineers. One has to wonder if Mr Reagan was already on the downhill slope of dementia at that stage.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

 We did because we could, and the Reagan administration intended to send a message to the world (and the American electorate) that military force was an option. And, the overwhelming majority of Grenadians supported (and benefited from) that action.


 
We come a little closer to agreement with your last couple of sentences. I think Reagan did indeed want to send a message, to both his voters and to the world in general. What is shocking is that the plot of a Sylvester Stallone type of action flick is the best he could come up with. It sent out the wrong type of message altogether, one that says US administrations may become loose cannons on the international scene, shooting first and asking questions later. It said that hypocracy was not a problem with his administration. It said that the US saw the world in grossly simplistic terms. What this sort of thing does is act as an encouragement for others to go their own way, and arm as much as possible (take a look at N Korea and Iran today).
 
Grenadians may be better off today (except of course for those killed and maimed in the attack). Or, things may have worked out for them on their own with time. But to claim that the US is sacrificing itself for freedom, when doing the opposite when that is more advantageous, is absurd.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2012 at 16:14
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Where Reagan made his mistake was in producing an event that would have made a great Hollywood movie, but as a geopolitical statement it was as transparent and self-serving as could be.
 
In fact it did make a Hollywood movie: Heartbreak Ridge. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091187/plotsummary
Quote Marine Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway has been in the Corps since the Korean War and would like to see some action and a victory before he retires....
 
....Sergeant Tom Highway, a hardened, tough veteran of Korea and Vietnam returns to the United States for his last tour of duty with the U.S. Marine Corps. He is assigned to training a recon unit. Their cool, trendy and 'hippy' approach to military life is a reminder to him that he is, in the words of his commanding officer, a major, "an anachronism" - useful only "in case of war". Conveniently, a war does arise (the invasion of Grenada in October, 1983) and successfully tests both his usefulness and the effectiveness of the new recruits.
It's the hoopla like that that surrounded the 'war' in Grenada that's difficult to bear, or, for that matter to take seriously. Grenada was in the Commonwealth. All Reagan had to do, given his relationship with Mrs Thatcher, was to have a quiet word with her, and the whole place could have been taken over almost by a gunboat, little noted and not long remembered. Certainly Grenada (total population then around 90,000) would have been nothing like confronting Argentina over the Falklands.
 
Captain V is right. After what had been happening since the '60s, right up to 1980, Reagan needed a glamourisable operation to help bolster the Hollywood America image he was building his preseidency on.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2012 at 19:38
Lets get real, Reagan pulled it off without informing Maggie. Once again your pride as a nation was hurt. It reminded y'all of your real position in the strata of world events, and importance. Not too mention a blow to the ideas and desires of UK Communists.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2012 at 22:53
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Lets get real, Reagan pulled it off without informing Maggie. Once again your pride as a nation was hurt. It reminded y'all of your real position in the strata of world events, and importance. Not too mention a blow to the ideas and desires of UK Communists.
 
 
It was a blow to more than just "UK communists". It was an event also met with dismay by those who had some value in the idea of international law, and the idea that all out military force is best reserved for the most desperate of circumstances. It also stoked the cynicism of those who observed killing allowed for the purposes of adolescent image making, and political vote gathering. It also no doubt confirmed that many who hold the highest offices can be quite out of their depth in terms of maturity and knowedge of the world.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 03:24
Dear Captain V, Nice to hear you admit that Grenadians "may" have been better off for our intervention. Yes, indeed.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 13:17
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Lets get real, Reagan pulled it off without informing Maggie.
Almost anybody could have pulled it off. How hard can it be to take on a country the size of Albany, New York?
The whole thing was blown up out of all proportion by the US administration (and the media), desperate for some kind of success story after the humiliations of the previous couple of decades. The point about leaving it to Britain is that all the US's real interests would have been achieved without any fuss or pseudo-heroics. 
Quote
Once again your pride as a nation was hurt. It reminded y'all of your real position in the strata of world events, and importance. Not too mention a blow to the ideas and desires of UK Communists.
Is there a chance you may return to this earth some day?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 06:26
GCLE, Yes, Britain could have handled it, though I doubt they would have done so. Caricom was determined to do something about Grenada, and some members were quite willing to invite the U.S. to joint them in military action. this was a position radically different from an Caricom's earlier public statements. (see: http://www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/guyanafeatures/jackson.html ) But yes, Grenada was certainly overblown, partially for reasons you mention. Egos get involved in any military operation. Panama was another case of blatant overkill.

I'm sure that some UK labourites got their feathers ruffled, though I seriously doubt any other than those from Caribbean countries had any particular "ideas and desires" vis-a-vis Grenada.  For the Cubans, it was a loss, albeit a small one. Angola was far more important to them at the time and, from what I have read from South African sources, their military was doing a fairly credible job.  
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 12:11
My point about Thatcher was that, given some kind of quid pro quo, she would probably have seen it dealt with. I agree that without being asked to do something she wouldn't have been terribly worried about what was happening in Grenada.
 
It wasn't just the left-wing that had its feathers ruffled by the US action, but rather the right-wing traditionalists.  


Edited by gcle2003 - 25 Apr 2012 at 12:15
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.