When and how did the U.S. get addicted to supporting dictators

[KlatooBNikto]

against democratic representatives of people?I am referring particularly to Iran, Guatemala, Chile,Vietnam and on and on.This goes against our own traditions so much I can only think that a small powerful group within our country has been in control of our foreign policy without the consent of our own representatives.The other possibility, as Noam Chomsky has said many times, this consent is manufactured to give it a democratic veneer when it is nothing of the sort.

[punpirate]

Google "Smedley Butler" and "War is a Racket" and you'll

have your answer.

Cheers.

[4morewars]

7. Here ya go:

No need to google it, I have it bookmarked:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[punpirate]

10. Uh, I don't need it...

... the poster did.

I've read it, thanks. That's why I suggested it.

[4morewars]

11. Uh.....

then don't fuckin click it.

[punpirate]

12. Quite civil of you...

... thanks for that essential bit of information.

[Selwynn]

22. Uh... no need to for the snotty answer

No where in the post did he say *you* needed it. Only that there's no need to google it like you suggested.

[punpirate]

26. Read his thread title, please.

Directing the information to the person who requested it is a courtesy. Directing it to someone who's already offered it is a distraction.

Cheers.

[Selwynn]

28. Give me a break

"ya" is most likely generic, and you don't make the rules on where / when / how information is offered. You're acting like a spoiled brat over the most ridiculous non-issue. Someone posts a helpful link and you get your nose out of joint because you don't like where in the thread it was posted. That's a new one for me.

[olddem43]

1. Believe it happened with the onset of the Cold War -

when anyone could get our support so long as they were anti-Soviet.
We even supported communist dictators, like Tito.

[RandomKoolzip]

2. The immediate post WWII period, beginning with the formation

of the ONI and the CIA. Google Guatemala and CIA.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. The birth of the "National Security State"

and the death of the Republic.

The disparity between the two is the measure of Americans' cognitive dissonance.

[acmavm]

3. When they threw common decency and respect for all people out the

window in favor of raking big bucks and the dreams of empire ruled by a few who feel themselves 'entitled'.

Not a new concept, been going on since time began. The secret powers that be in this country are just taking it to new heights.

[SoCalDem]

4. Hmmmm..when did we invade the Philippines??? 18??..

We are addicted to national treasure and resoources.. (Other people's treasure and resources)..

We prop up proxy leaders, take what we want, and then skedaddle..(or sometimes we stay)..

[4morewars]

5. About 1946

That's not to say that they weren't into it earlier, but they seem to have ramped it up right after WW II.

[sr_pacifica]

6. Since forever

If it's in the best interest of U.S. business or some regime they could use to keep the Communists (Socialists, Sandinistas, etc) at bay.

[NYC Liberal]

8. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

[Disturbed]

9. Since the 1815.

Just guessing but it's been going on for a long time.

It's about Capitalism, not democracy. The US Govt. has not cared abut democracy for other countries for at least a 100 years. It's all a facade.

Read a bit about the CIA. Murderers for Capitalists!



CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator.

The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the
traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists" but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow. - Steve Kangas: Timeline of CIA Atrocities

http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

[Eye and Monkey]

17. I think you could go back to Haitian Independence, around 1799. Seriously

Some folks in the US were very concerned about the idea of a successful slave revolt spreading into the southern states of the US. I'm not sure that it was called "containment", but the US did support the overthrow of the revolutions leaders and subsequent dictatorships.

[Darranar]

13. From around the Spanish-American War onward. n/t

[stavka]

15. I would echo that opinion....

[alphafemale]

21. Sound's about Right. Corporations were given "personhood" in the

late 19th Century though. And that's what's gotten us here to a large extent.

[21winner]

14. The USA was never addicted to dictators.

I guess you forgot about Stalin,Hitler,Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao, Khrushchev Brezhnev,et al and all the little tyrants that ruled the Soviet satellites for 50 yrs. There are only two left, in Cuba and N. Korea.
Chomsky should stick to linguists. I assume he has some expertise in that field.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

18. Pinochet, the Shah, Duvalier, Batista, Hussein...

and in more current days, Mubarak, Musharraf, the rulers of Kuwait, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, and the rulers of Uzbekistan.

There have been plenty of others: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2844.htm

[Selwynn]

25. You should stick to finishing that GED

Maybe in Remedial History 101, you can discover a thing or two about our own past.

[Zynx]

19. We started supporting them way back in the 19th century.

We supported lots of thugs in central America starting around then and we just kept up with it right through the Cold War with Montt, Franco, Pinochet, Salazar, Videla, Rhee, Mobuto, and the rest of them and up to this day with Musharaff, Crown Prince Abdullah, and that guy in Uzbekistan among others.

[Selwynn]

23. The US has a longstanding history of undermining democracy

The idea that somehow this "breaks" with tradition is absurd. It does "break" our indoctrinalized ideology that America has always been a bastion of justice and freedom around the world. In reality what America has always been is a power bent on its own self gain and the explotation and domination of as much of the world as humanly possible in the name of more power and more control. First we took that attitude towards our expansion across the continent, including murding the people who alreadly lived there and taking huge chunks of land from Mexico. Then once we had dominated and subjucated or own continent, we began to expand ever outward. Our history is a long history of "manifest destiny" -- only the belief doesn't stop at the water's edge.

[Selwynn]

24. American Hegimony - a Timeline

I like this site:
http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index0.php?page=1247837097.htm

[leesa]

27. How? That's how you sell arms and steal resources. These

people do not want democracy anywhere because it cuts deeply into corporate profits. If people own their own resources, the corporations can get uber-rich.

[many a good man]

29. Ever since the closing of the frontier in 1892

Read Frederick Jackson Turner's famous essay delivered to the Chicago World's Fair. It marked the successful completion of Manifest Destiny. Shortly thereafter the attention of wealthy traders turned abroad.

The problem back then was due to a weak central government and the populace's revulsion of taxes, necessary to raise an army and a navy for foreign conquest. Also, by 1900 we were country full of immigrants weary of fighting in senseless wars. However, since the time of Aaron Burr you will always find groups of foreign adventurers eager to annex places like Canada, Mexico, Central America, etc., almost always failing to get support from the government.

In the 1890s industrial barons were looking for foreign markets to conquer, as well as for raw materials sourced in far off lands that required military protection. Our first attempt at Empire the Philippines turned into a foreign policy disaster. They were mostly unsuccessful until after our participation in WWI, when Great Britain gave us a huge chunk of her Empire in exchange for saving her in the Great War.

Soon multinational corporations became the greatest political force in the smoke-filled back rooms of national government and slowly led to greater internationalism. Following WWII, GB handed over to us what was left of her Empire, and became our "junior partner" in world domination. However, we had learned lessons from the previous Age of Empire and determined that we would maintain our domination through proxy wars, since direct military intervention was always pretty costly in terms of political support. Puppet governments were thought to maintain the most stable environment for foreign investment so their support became our bi-partisan national policy.

You're right, it is against our traditions. But it won't change until the people tire of it and can picture a future that is more prosperous and secure without it.

I think a lot of Americans have an unspeakable gut feeling that our wasteful high standard of living is dependent on our military domination of the world. They think that any backing down will lead to a serious decline in our collective standard of living. So far no convincing national voice of dissent has emerged...