Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
What about FARC and Shining Path? Were/are they not instruments of the Soviets and Cubans still active to this day in Peru and Colombia. You can't really say the US is the only one stirring the pot. Cuba is very influential in aiding sympathetic revolutionaries in South America. I don't think Che died in Boliva while selling Pravda door to door.
Also the legacy of Spainish colonialism created a culture of "strong man" regimes prior to any US involvement. The Paraguayians, Brasilians and Argentines were completely sympathetic to the Nazis in the 30s and 40s due to Franco and Spain and against all US influence.
Chavez himself led a coup attempt in 1992. Needless to say the US had nothing to do with that. Funny thing is Chavez was in charge of counter insurgency forces for the Venezualan army. I guess it takes a revolutionary to hunt one. I would not be suprised at all to find Chavez aiding like minded revolutionaries operating in or near his borders.
your description of what the US does is exactly what Chavez attempted in 1992, but he is a hero and the US is bad. How is that?
|
I'm not proclaiming chavez a hero, nor do I think Castro is one. There are serious rights abuses going on in both countries regarding freedoms of the press and political expression. However, even taking reports of secret police as fact, the abuses of those two leaders pale in comparison to those committed against the indigenous populations of guatemala for instance, or the mining of nicaraguan sea-ports.
I'm not denying south/latin america's history prior to US involvement, which is comparatively worse, but I'm digressing from the question you posed. I think a large portion of US Foreign Policy is in fact, imperialism. not that it is any worse than other acts of imperialism by other states.