US Intervention in these countries. What did we do?

We invaded them for Freedom, Truth, Justice and the American Way! We invaded them so their children can grow up in a land where people are just like us! We invaded them for Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's and Budweiser and Little Debby Snack Foods and Starbucks! We invaded them for oil and profits and secutity of American everywhere! We invaded tham because that's what America does! It invades! And not one of them has thanked us. Ungrateful bastards!

pretty close, Nick.

I got all the others but what did we do in Brazil?

Sorry I sometimes lose track of these things, there are so many.

I see nobody cooperating with you here Suz, so I'll give you a little to chew on till one of the better informed members shows up.

Afghanistan (twice)- Assisted in keeping the hated soviets from spreading their idiocy, then kicked the sh!t out of them for harboring terrorists.
Turkey- Gave them way too much credit for way too little progress.
Colombia- Stabilized the price of cocaine while providing cash laundering in exchange for a back up supply of oil.
Pakistan- Put the fear of God in them by reminding them that their argument with India was the equivalent to two kids playing patty cake.
Zaire- Assisted them in changing the name to make it harder to find the poorest place and what should be the biggest source of shame on the planet. I don't know how dangerous Lumumba really was; but Mobutu was a monster that rarely spent a day undeserving of a bullet in his own head.
Iraq- Freed the people from an oppressive monster, and hopefully have taken an important first step towards providing a foothold of freedom the land of human hopelessness.
Argentina- Severely punished them by allowing Madonna to star in a movie about their struggle.
El Salvador- Be patriotic… kill a priest! Yet another Despotic kettle of scum boiling over. Keep your fingers crossed… Maybe we'll eventually get around to them.
Haiti- Which one? Don't we sharpen our skills there every few years? Or are you referring specifically to providing a ride to the lovely human being Duvalier so he could retire in France?
Grenada- Kicked a handful of Grenadian ass along 2 or 3 Cuban Asses because Bishop was a little too Red for our tastes. This is one of the many places we could painlessly improve the locals livelihoods and just don't bother. I vote we offer Statehood.
Nicuragua- "Our son of a bitch". Now, before you start bashing Reagan, let me remind you it was Carter who first tried to leave the National Guard in charge, while baby sonofa left with nearly a Billion dollars. Like Panama, these fools simply need to mimic the example provided for them by the incredible Country between them.
Brazil- In a totally selfless effort... Saved the entire population by importing one Craven De Kere.
Kosovo- There really is two sides to this story, but for the most part it was reported pretty accurately. Milosevic had to go.
Cambodia- shamelessly bombed the bejesus out of them and then closed our eyes while the Red's killed even more. Other than Clary's digression, I've pretty much heard nothing but horror stories about the place.
Ethiopia- Provided us with a locale for some jokes that are in disgustingly bad taste, but are funny nonetheless. How do you tell an Ethiopian Drug Dealer? Look for a guy with a Rolex around his waist. Seriously, another horrific source of shame. Like the guys from Bandaid said "Feed the world" okay?

Zat whatcha wanted?

Ok I missed this one...sorry.

O'Bill, LOL!

Over the last 50 years, democratically elected reformist governments such as in Brazil (and also including the Congo, Guatemala, Uraguay, Dominican Republic, Syria, Greece and Cyprus, among others), were overthrown by their respective military forces funded and advised by the US government. Why? Not simply because they had socialist-type governments (communists, shiver), but because their egalitarian redistributive economic programs were a threat to the free-market global capitolist economy. Once they are overthrown and the US helps install a military-type rule, reforms are rolled back and the country is opened up to foreign investors on terms favorable to the investors. Usually accompanied by much raping and pillaging of their natural resources. I have recently come to acknowledge finally that our government (not us) and other 'corporations" have a huge stake in keeping these countries "third worldized". Who does the US usually attack and subdue? Leftist governments! There is story after story about wrongdoing done by the US as well as the WTO, IMF, and the World Bank. Simply saying "they hate us because of our freedoms" feeds into the lie we've been swallowing for decades, and I hate to see fellow Americans believing it. We need to admit that the US is not some benevolent, wonderful nation intent on spreading our freedom and democracy (when in fact the US gov't tries to eradicate it everywhere it is found) because if we can't admit it, we can't do the right thing and change it! It's the government, not the citizens of the US, who are doing evil. But as with every other country, it is the citizens who will suffer the consequences. I posted this because I want to hear the reasons people think we "helped" those nations, because I'm betting that most don't have a clue. How can they? It's not like the daily paper or local news is telling us!

Okay, I see O'Bill is biting. This may take all night. You are one of the true believers, huh Bill?

Huh?

Read what he wrote on say, Colombia, Zaire, El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, Cambodia ... he sounded pretty sceptical and no-nonsense about what America's been up to, to me! (Pleasant surprise, actually, apart from being funny in that black kind of way ...)

Afghanistan. In the mid 60s, the people's democratic party was formed. In 73, the king was deposed and replaced by what proved to be an autocratic, corrupt ruler. He was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in which the Afghan army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.
The military officers who took charge then invited the people's democratic party to form a new government under the leadership of a poet named Taraki. This is how a marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. It was a totally indigenous happening that not even the CIA could blame the USSR for.
The new gov't began to pursue reforms. It set up a minimum wage, legalized labor unions, a literacy campaign, a progressive income tax, and better access to health care, housing and public sanitation.
It also continued a campaign begun by the former king to emancipate women from tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls, and it moved to eradicate the cultivation of poppies. It also abolished all debt owed by farmers and began developing a major land reform program. It was a popular gov't and Afghans were optimistic about the future.
However, some factions were not happy. Feudal landlords opposed land reforms that benefited everyone, and fundamentalist mullahs and tribesmen opposed the govt's dedication to gender equality and education for women and children.
because of the egalitarian economic policies, the US was also not happy. Almost immediately after the PDP came into power, the CIA, assisted by Pakistani and Saudi military, launched a large scale intervention on behalf of the ousted feudal lords, mullahs, and opium traffickers.
A top official in the taraki gov't, Amin, US educated and believed to be a CIA recruit, seized state power in an armed coup. The Carter administration provided huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the taraki gov't reforms. Amin executed taraki and many others, and set about setting up a fundamentalist gov't. But within months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including some in the military.
In late 1979, the restored but beseiged PDP gov't asked Moscow for help to ward off the Islamic guerilla fighters and mercenaries paid for and trained by the CIA. The soviets had been helping financially but weren't keen on sending troops, though they eventually did.
The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to escalate the tribal resistance into a holy war. Over the years, the US and Saudi Arabia spent over $40 billion in their war on Afghanistan. The CIA and it's allies recruited, supplied and trained almost 100,000 mujahideen, including BinLaden. After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets fled in 1989, although even without them, the PDP prevailed until 1992 because of the popular support of the people in Afghanistan.

Upon taking over, the muhajideen ruled the country gangster style, and ordered the farmers to plant opium poppy. In the 1993 WTC attack, most of the terrorists were Mujahideen veterans of the Afghani war. In 1994, USA and pakastani leaders decided to back a group that might end the civil strife and unite the country around a stable, rightwing government. Conveniently, such a government could also insure the safety of the Unocal oil pipeline planned to run through Afghanistan. Within a year, the taliban, heavily funded and advised by the CIA and pakastani intelligence, had fought it's way to power. And we know what the Taliban did, don't we? And as recently as 1999, the US government paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official.
Not one of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were taliban, as far as is known, and not one not one was from Afghanistan or had ever even visited the country.
Yet that is the country we chose to go to war with, this time overtly, in 2001, because we believed binLaden was directing alQuada from there. Almost 4,000 innocent Afghan civilians were killed.
After the war, the Northern Alliance came into power. Turns out they had a rep for criminal anarchy in the pre-Taliban days. In 2001, a statement by the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan called for a United Nations Peacekeeping Force to safeguard the human rights of the Afghan people. The proposal surprisingly elicited no enthusiasm from the US (despite all the hype we heard about caring for women's rights, etc) or from tribal warlords, although ordinary Afghans are supportive. It seems we're done with them for now, so we don't care.
It's what we do. Shall we keep letting things like this happen in our name?

You're right, nimh, I didn't read each comment. I assumed they'd all be like the first two.
Sorry Bill.

I didn't give you the credit you deserve, O'Bill.
I am happy and surprised at your recognition of some of these. Guess I pegged you too soon. I am deeply ashamed. You're still an obnoxious righty but you do keep your eyes open. Thanks for your input!

Don't sweat it Suz. I'm so used to you lefties getting everything wrong, I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't said anything. :wink:

Btw, why'd you leave Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Indonesia, Greece, Chile, Laos, Angola, Libya and Yugoslavia off your list? I can't say I'm proud of what we did to the people of Bikini Atoll either. We still haven't paid our reparations to them, you know. And how about right here at home; JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Paul Robeson, etc, etc, etc...

No, I don't think we're perfect, Suz... but there's usually a second side to the story so don't get too caught up in self loathing... and don't go thinking we never (or very recently didn't) go after truly bad guys. Saddam was one of those guys. Kim Jong IL is one of those guys.

Ps No one but me (and maybe NIMH?) thought the Ethiopian drug dealer was funny?

Sorry, I missed the intervention in Argentina. Perhaps because I was living there at the time. Can you be more specific?

That one was easy, stud. You can cheat off my answers if you like. :wink:

I pity the fool that cheats off your answers bwana.

You don't think Madonna's portrayal of Eva was punishment? Don't cry for me I'm no bwana...
That was supposed to have been in humor,
That's all I wanted...

I didn't put every single country we've intervened in, O'Bill, just in the interests of time, but I was hoping others would do that, and also add their thoughts/beliefs on what the purpose was for each.
Panzade, I don't think you missed it, if you were there! Here's one page that tells a bit about it: (Note that many of these countries are being made to close down privately-owned businesses and privitize stuff that rightly belongs to the public, too)

Military dictatorships ruled Argentina from June 1966 to 1983. Although agriculturally a prosperous and thriving economy, Argentina's foreign debt grew from $8 billion to $43 billion because the military needed money to purchase arms for the suppression of leftist parties, including students, labor, and others-a policy backed and supported by the U.S.-culminating in 30,000 "disappeared ones" and torture and killing of thousands more; and, secondly, to fight the Falkland Island (Malvinas Islands) war against England in 1982.
Debt continued to grow to $143 billion by the end of 2001, while the interest owed between 1992 and 2001 amounted to $82 billion. Inflation escalated, goods became extremely expensive because wage increases did not keep up with the inflation rate, and people lost their purchasing power.
With high inflation and unstable economic conditions, in 1991 Argentina borrowed money from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (WB/IMF). To obtain the loan, Argentina had to institute the WB/IMF Structural Adjustment Program that requires, (1) control of inflation, (2) privatization of state-owned enterprises, (3) opening up the country to foreign imports and investments, (4) no tariffs on imports, (5) freedom for corporations to expatriate profits, (6) suppression of labor.
Public sector enterprises were sold to MNCs and private owners and almost all social gains were eliminated. Poverty and inequality grew, tens of thousands of state workers lost their jobs, and unemployment rose from 6 percent to over 15 percent (late to 25 percent). Through the sale of the state (public) enterprises the government had collected $49 billion, which maintained an ersatz of a relatively prosperous economy and Argentina was touted as a WB/IMF "success story."

To control inflation in 1991, Argentina pegged its peso to the U.S. dollar-a fixed exchange rate-plus it put restraints on the issuance of money to control hyper inflation. Because the country on its own did not generate enough dollars, the domestic money supply of dollars had to be backed by dollar inflow from outside. Parity between dollar and peso assured investors that they would not lose capital due to possible devaluation of the Argentina peso. Foreign money poured in during the 1990s ($70,000 million). Sixty percent of such investment was aimed at acquiring public entities or already existing private companies.

Development of new industries and creation of new jobs was low.
Argentina's currency was at par with the dollar (one peso equals one U.S. dollar) and hence strong; other countries had devalued their currencies and the exchange rate against the dollar was much lower, that is, weak currency. This situation caused Argentinean goods to be overpriced in the international market because the same goods were sold cheaper by other countries. Furthermore, when Argentina eliminated tariff barriers, as required by WB/IMF loans, a flood of cheaper imported goods from developed countries brought Argentinean industry almost to a standstill and recession began.
In June 2000 the Argentine government announced an austerity plan to fulfill the country's commitment to the IMF, which was to reduce the budget deficit from $7.1 billion to $4.5 billion. This would be achieved by reducing public spending by $938 million, cutting employees salaries by 12 percent; closing some of the government offices, eliminating labor benefits, suspending public work projects, and increasing taxes on the middle class. Industrial production had slipped in January 2001 by 4.2 percent and it was predicted that it would shrink by 8 percent in 2002. Argentina's economy continued to shed 80,000 jobs per month and showed a 20 percent decline in industrial production during the first quarter of 2002. Tens of thousands lost their jobs and by June 2002 the unemployment rate was estimated to be 25 percent. People lost their purchasing power, exacerbating the existing recession and depression set in.
The new finance minister warned that without layoffs and other spending cuts the fiscal deficit would reach $8.5 billion instead of the $6.5 billion required by the IMF as a condition for the $40 billion credit line granted by international lending groups. By November 2001 the country was finding it impossible to meet the $19 billion dollars annually in interest payment on the foreign debt. In December 2001 Argentina failed to make interest payment of $1.3 billion on foreign debt and defaulted on its loan payment.
On February 21, 2001 thousands of unemployed marched from La Matanza-an industrial town 28 kilometers from Buenos Aires with the highest unemployment rate in the country-to the capital. The same day Children of the People marched from La Quiaca (a town in the far north) demanding work for their parents and schools for themselves. Another group of marchers arrived in the capital asking for "bread and work." Twenty months later, on November 8, 2002, a group of children reached the capital in a "March for Life and Against Hunger" after traveling 4,500 kilometers from the Misiones province.
Workers unions called a national strike that affected transportation, health care, education, and the judicial system. Protesters blocked roads and railway lines. In May 2001, 22 major roads running through the Buenos Aires province to the federal capital were blocked, and since then, on any given day, as many as 50 blockades of highways and roads occur throughout the countryside.
The final collapse of the Argentina government under President De la Rua began on December 17, 2001 when the economy minister Cavallo announced $9 billion in spending cuts for the 2002 budget. A wave of food riots led by thousands of poor families, joined by middle-class women, made poor by inflation and unemployment took to the streets banging empty pots and pans, called "cacerolazos." By December 19 massive looting, especially of food stores, spread to many parts of the country, along with anti-government riots. Violence erupted and by December 22 the death toll had mounted to 31, primarily due to police shootings. About 2,000 were arrested and thousands were injured. President De la Rua resigned on December 21 and left the presidential palace, along with Cavallo. In the coming weeks three other presidents were installed, but resigned. Duhalde-the fifth president-who had lost the presidential election to De la Rua in 1999 accepted the presidency to serve out the rest of De la Rua's term.

People began to withdraw money from banks. A report from the Central Bank confirmed that in November 2001, $4.9 billion was withdrawn. Rich depositors who had more than $250,000 in the bank withdrew 47.4 percent of their money, whereas small depositors who had up to $10,000 were allowed to withdraw only 9 percent of their funds." The state, fearing its bankruptcy, closed the banks and blocked withdrawals. It had two reasons for blocking withdrawals. Depositors had lost confidence in the peso and hence would create a run on the banks, leaving little money for the government to pay its WB/IMF debt. Second, because Argentina's peso was tied to the U.S. dollar at par, depositors wanted their money in dollars, not pesos. By March 2002 the government devalued the peso to 50 percent, which gutted the savings and slashed the living standard of most Argentineans. Foreign banks withdrew hundreds of millions of dollars and put them in offshore banks.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Unstable_Argentina.html

Suz, I think you are blaming the US for quite a bit unjustly here. Further, some of the stuff you highlight as if it's crime is very, very good stuff. Progress takes time.

You highlighted this paragraph instance:



Which part do you blame us for and more over, which part do you think was harmful? That's mostly "welcome to the real world" standard stuff.
1) Printing money when you need some is a practice that will keep you isolated for eternity.
2) How many more examples do you need that state run business is a recipe for disaster. Did you know that since the U.S. began subsidizing our railroads, there hasn't been a single one that operates at a profit? Ever? Not one.
3) The world is a twenty trillion dollar pie. It's a good idea to make yourself eligible for a piece of it.
4) See (3) and over taxing foreign goods is the surest way to stifle trade there is.
5) If you want people to bring money in, you have to let them take it out too.
6) This one I'd like a definition for.

You have to understand; privatization works in the end, but can be very painful in the short run, when you first make the switch. Imagine living in Russia your whole life, having everything but the extras provided by the state for most of your life. You've amassed a healthy retirement account of say $20,000. Since you don't NEED to spend that money on anything, it will last forever. Then the Soviet collapse and a move toward capitalism. We all know that's going to be good in the long run, but in the short run your sizeable nest egg of $20,000 is suddenly only worth $20,000. As the state pays for less and less during the transition, you watch your life savings shrink to an impossibly small fortune. In this model, you are something of a martyr for your children and their children. Every change has good and bad points for various groups of citizens... but I think most agree that no change for the Soviets would have been an unsustainable disaster.