LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 437
0 members and 437 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-14-2007, 11:52 AM   #11
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,202
oh where oh where has my ninth amendment gone

Quote:
Originally posted by LessinSF
I wouldn't take out Chavez for additional reasons. First, he is democratically elected, and far from mistreating his people (contrast Saddam, Castro, Khaddafi, and our history of U.S. supported hacks and petty despots such as Aquino, Saddam, the Taliban, the Sauds, etc.). He has so much oil money that he doesn't need to.

Second, he is very popular in latin America and our previous ham-fisted attempts to put in our own latin petty despots (Peron, Noriega, anyone in Colombia, the Dirty War, the Docs, Batista, the Contras, etc.) have all backfired, with the result being that the entire continent distrusts us so much that they fought for years the efforts to preserve millions of acres of Patagonia by the eco-fascist couple who founded North Face and Benetton (I think) because they thought it was a U.S. CIA plot to seize the land. We have no credibility in this region.

This is the problem with my support of better intelligence - our intelligence agencies have a shitty track record in this field. Maybe with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, they could focus better on anything other than their former mantra of "Must. Oppose. Soviet Union. Regardless," but I'm not sure. We simply often don't understand the culture and mindset of these other cultures and, accordingly, fail to handle these things appropriately. Hence, I also remain fairly anti-interventionist, not because I think things are wrong elsewhere, but because our track record on effecting positive change through our military and clandestine efforts (where we have been the protagonist/aggresssor) in the last century has been so dismal.

LessinIguazu
I don't disagree. I think we should mind our own business, until someone really impacts our bottom line or safety. Then we should pay someone in his upper echelon an amazing stack of money to overthrow and kill him.

I don't see how we can ever understand every culture. The best we can do is get along with them. If one should become a danger then take some sort of action to get rid of the problem.

All actions should be reactive, or at least preventative of definite, impending problems.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 AM.