| Revision as of 17:37, 16 July 2012 editHorhey420 (talk | contribs)2,559 editsm →An Imperial Superpower in Plain Sight← Previous edit |
Revision as of 16:18, 17 July 2012 edit undoHorhey420 (talk | contribs)2,559 edits →Robert White quotes in Background SectionNext edit → |
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] is a 1986 war drama film which tells the story of an American journalist in El Salvador covering the Salvadoran civil war. --] (]) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
* ] is a 1986 war drama film which tells the story of an American journalist in El Salvador covering the Salvadoran civil war. --] (]) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Belligerents == |
|
|
|
|
|
The USSR & Cuba were not involved in the war, please cite & add section or remove from list --] (]) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. However, your additions to this article (403 of them) are not in agreement with our guidelines, in form but especially in content. In fact, I was on the verge of reverting them, all of them, but for now I will refrain. I will, however, place an NPOV tag on the article: too much of the text you added reads like an essay and an indictment of the Carter and subsequent administrations. This is a matter for the article talk page; I am hoping that you will show some good will by reading ] and editing the (huge amount of) content you have added. The language needs tweaking, and the many long quotes need trimming--in fact, most of them probably need to be removed. Thank you. ] (]) 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Im open to suggestions on how to make it seem more nuetral in your view but before I contributed anything there was a lot of missinformation that was presented as fact such as Soviet sponsorship of the FMLN even though there was no evidence to support that conclusion besides the simple fact that the President and the State Department said so. Another example was the assertion that the elections were free and fair and that Duarte was some kind of benevolent figure leading El Salvador to substantive democracy. All this lingered here for years. These and other false impressions, distortions and ommissions were fostered by the public relations industry and the ] headed by Otto Reich.<p>I also found that too much important information was left out and many of the citations were broken and "unverifiable." My sources are solid and in my view, the information I have contributed is too valuable to leave out of this history. I did not find most of it in standard Google searches. What you see so far is from over 7 years worth of research. Many books, many documents and many press reports. It would be very unfortunate to have to remove everything.<p>But anyways, I am open to specific suggestions to make it seem less bias but one good way to balance it out would be if someone could contribute their own information to counter what I have presented. 04:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) {{unsigned|Horhey420}} |
|
|
**Thank you for discussing the matter here. What this article needs is attention and, no disrespect intended, that includes attention from experienced editors with a firm knowledge of the ]. ] (]) 00:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**This "US Involvement" section is just way too big. It's more than half the article. Worse, it doesn't jive with how such an article should be organized--basic organization should be chronological, and a section on involvement should be commensurate, lengthwise, with the rest. It also doesn't jive in tone: it reads like an argumentative essay, which is why editors don't think this is neutral enough (I'm not the only one, apparently). This needs an expert, and I'll tag it accordingly. ] (]) 02:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Livingstone Article == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to this Wiki Article, "In Livingstone's view, the mass murder is necessary as "nearly all were leftists or relatives of left—wing activists." |
|
|
|
|
|
This is NOT what Livingstone's hypothesis was. Please read the article, in its entirety: www.jstor.org/stable/20671988. This is what Livingstone really said: <br /><br /> |
|
|
:a) there are civil wars, or internal conflicts in many Central American and Southern Cone countries.<br /><br /> |
|
|
:b) neither the governments nor the revolutionaries of these countries are respecting human rights. <br /><br /> |
|
|
:c) human rights abuses by the revolutionaries are much worse and more frequent than those by the governments. <br /><br /> |
|
|
:d) socialist and communist regimes that assumed their position through revolution do not "tone down" their violations of human rights; in fact, he says, they "ramp up" their disrespect for human rights. He cites Cuba, Cambodia, Russia as having far worse human rights records than the worst right wing government in Latin America: "In view of the appalling human rights record of Marxist governments around the globe, it is perhaps easier to understand why the inhabitants of El Salvador, Guatemala, and other nations of Latin America beset by leftist violence feel driven to adopt such extreme measures in self defense. Argentina at its worst, moreover, was far from becoming a monster regime like that of Idi Amin in Uganda or the Macias govern ment in Equatorial Guinea," and "Such excesses must always be condemned by the community of civilized men and women, and American allies that use such practices or permit others to engage in them must be convinced that more effective alternatives exist."<br /><br /> |
|
|
:e) Carter made a mistake by reducing or stopping aid to Latin American countries. The human rights situation worsened in areas where US stopped aid.<br /><br /> |
|
|
:f) His conclusion is that "Reason dictates, however, that if the United States can help nations beset by internal violence find better and more effective ways to solve their problems, they will not need to resort to such stomach-turning prac tices. Revolting acts of human savagary will still occur, as they do in every conflict, and anyone who does not realize and accept this fact is either naive or hopelessly idealistic, or both. Only by providing such governments with adequate arms, training, and supplies to conduct modern counterterrorist and counterinsurgency operations can we prevail on them to moderate practices such as torture and to control ex tremist and paramilitary vigilante groups that arise to defend the state."<br /> |
|
|
: |
|
|
I will change the article so that it reflects the truth. Other editors should also fix other parts of the article. Way too much emphasis is placed on the US involvement. The fact is that the country lacked socially, economically, and politically. They lacked before the US was involved, and they lacked after the US left. This was the real cause of the conflict. Why doesn't the article reflect this basic truth? --] (]) 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: On second thought, would anyone be opposed to deleting the blurb about the Livingstone article (in the US involvement section)? The "US Involvement" is nearly one half of the article. Another third of the article is a timeline. All sections seem to focus more on the US than on the issue itself. Readers that are unfamiliar with the subject are led to believe that the US played a bigger role than it really did. One way of "cutting the fat" would be to cut the Livingstone bit. Thoughts? Does the article benefit by quoting Livingstone? --] (]) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Deleting the reference. The author was originally misquoted. Once I fixed it to accurately reflect what the author said, the subject matter no longer contributed to the section or the article. --] (]) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You deleted your Livingstone article immediately after I added more information that made Livingstone look even worse for his stated rationale for US backing of death squads. It's in the record. And I did not misquote him. It's on p. 241 of "Death Squad," Journal of World Affairs 4, no. 3 (1986). He was specifically referring to Argentine death squad killings but his points are general. |
|
|
|
|
|
And as for your assertion that the US role is being overstated: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-938047.html |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The Washington Post: 12 Years of Tortured Truth on El Salvador |
|
|
|
|
|
US. Declarations During War Undercut by UN Commission Report</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The U.S. was deeply involved in running the war, from intelligence gathering to strategy planning to training of everyone from officers to foot soldiers. By 1982, U.S. military advisers were assigned to each of the six Salvadoran brigades, as well as each of 10 smaller detachments. The U.S. put tens of millions of dollars into developing the ultra-modern national intelligence directorate to coordinate intelligence gathering and dissemination. U.S. military and CIA officials participated in almost every important meeting. Most brigades had a U.S. intelligence officer assigned to them, as well as a U.S. liaison officer. U.S. advisers regularly doled out small amounts of money, usually less than $1,000 at a time, for intelligence work.</blockquote> --] (]) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are referring to Neil Livingstone’s “Death Squads,” World Affairs, 146:3 (Winter, 1983-1984), pp. 239-248. www.jstor.org/stable/20671988. The date is different, but the page numbers that you mention line up. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the part to which you are referring: |
|
|
|
|
|
“Death squads have become an issue in Central America today not, as their opponents would have us believe, because they alienate the general population and erode popular support for American-backed regimes, but just the opposite. In reality, death squads are an extremely effective tool, however odious, in combatting terrorism and revolutionary challenges. The death squads in El Salvador have made such a dent in support for the left that the revolutionary high command has launched a desperate campaign in the United States to influence the U.S. Congress to demand that the Magana government, as a condition for further U.S. aid, suppress death squad activities. Through clever propaganda and manipulation of the media, Salvadoran leftists and their supporters have already succeeded in denying the El Salvador government sufficient aid to win a military victory. Now they hope to complete the task by undermining one of the last serious obstacles to their takeover: the right-wing paramilitary vigilante units that have carried the war to the terrorists by turning their own methods against them.” (p241) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read it carefully. He is not saying that death squads are justified, nor is he saying that the US should support them. He is saying that their tactics are effectively being used to advance an overall strategy. It’s like a New York newspaper reporting that the Patriots outplayed the Giants. It doesn’t mean that the reporter likes the Giants. It simply means that he is objectively analyzing the issue. He is anti-leftist, and anti-rebel, but he is not pro-death squad. He is saying that because death squads are effective, we should help the Salvadoran government. Our help, he says, would reduce the penchant for death squads, and enable the Salvadoran government to combat leftists in an acceptable way. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you continue reading the article, you will see that he concludes that when the US under Carter cut aid to Argentina and Guatemala, the number of human rights violations skyrocketed. Cutting aid, in his opinion, had the opposite effect of what Carter intended. He says “Today there are some who want to repeat this mistake. Those in the Congress who cry the loudest for cutting aid to nations like El Salvador are the real patrons of death squads. By denying the Salvadoran government the resources and assistance it needs to fight a "clean war" on the battlefield, Congressional opponents are, for all intents and purposes, mandating that those frustrated by the government's inability to win a decisive victory by means of conventional military power will increasingly resort to a "dirty war" in the cities and countryside…. Reason dictates, however, that if the United States can help nations beset by internal violence find better and more effective ways to solve their problems, they will not need to resort to such stomach-turning practices. Revolting acts of human savagery will still occur, as they do in every conflict, and anyone who does not realize and accept this fact is either naive or hopelessly idealistic, or both. Only by providing such governments with adequate arms, training, and supplies to conduct modern counterterrorist and counterinsurgency operations can we prevail on them to moderate practices such as torture and to control extremist and paramilitary vigilante groups that arise to defend the state.” pp247-248. |
|
|
--] (]) 20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Carter did not cut aid to Guatemala. This is false. Only publicly was this the case. Covert military aid to Guatemala during the Carter years continued on the same levels as the Ford administration. They even turned to Israel to increase support for the Guatemalan killing machine. Israel acted as a surrogate. In order to understand these issues you have to take into account more than just one piece of information.--] (]) 15:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And Livingstone is just being dishonest. He's arguing that US aid would moderate the death squads' human rights abuses even though he had to have been well aware that the US stategy in Salvador was to "drain the sea", so the rest of what he said should be discarded.. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the conservative journal of the London in 1986, correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard explained the reasons for the decline in death squad killings in Salvador: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>"Numbers are down and the bodies are dropped discreetly at night into the middle of Lake Ilopango and only rarely wash up onto the shore to remind bathers that the repression is still going on. The death squads did exactly what they were supposed to do: they decapitated the trade unions and mass organizations that seemed in danger of setting off an urban insurrection at the beginning of the decade. The survivors had either to flee the country or join the guerrillas. The practice, well known to Vietnam aficionados and brought to El Salvador by US military advisers, is to drive civilians out of the zones and leave the guerrillas cut off from their support structure. Without the 'sea' (people), wrote Chairman Mao, the 'fish' (guerrillas) cannot survive. So the sea must be drained. The peasants say they can always tell when there is going to be an attack. First comes a 'push and pull' reconnaissance flight, then an A-37 Dragonfly in a flat dive. And they say the bombs are so big — often 500 pounds — that they can tell where they are going to land and have about 30 seconds to find cover. If it is a fragmentation bomb that explodes in the air and blasts sharpnel in all directions, they can only trust to God. Then comes the 'guinda', the flight from follow-up sweeps by regular infantry. The peasants grab what they can and run off to secret caves and burrows where they may spend days on end, too frightened to venture out for food and water. Meanwhile, the troops go through their villages, burning crops, killing livestock, tearing down houses, ripping up water pipes, and even planting hideous booby traps in the ruins they leave behind. It is a cruel way to wage war, but then murder and terror have long been the hallmarks of El Salvador. The brutality often surprises visitors because the country is not depraved in other respects. It is neither rooted in crime like Colombia, nor in corruption and hypocrisy like Mexico. Instead El Salvador is by and large an honest, courteous and cheerful society. Hence there may be some truth in what many Salvadorans say about the violence: that it is not indigenous and that it has been imposed from outside. The army learnt its tricks at American counter-insurgency schools in Panama and the United States. "We learnt from you", a death squad member once told an American reporter, "we learnt from you the methods, like blowtorches in the armpits, shots in the balls." And political prisoners often insist they were tortured by foreigners, some Argentine, others maybe American."<blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Im actually holding back a lot of information because an editor said the section is already too large.--] (]) 16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Washington's Covert Wars" == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is currently a paragraph that reads ''Washington's Covert wars in Central America were largely a war against the Church, once the Bishops had adopted "the preferential option for the poor." The 1980 Committee of Santa Fe Report prepared for the Reagan administration declares: "U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theology as it is utilized in Latin America by the 'Liberation Theology' clergy. Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Both quotes in the paragraph are incorrect, and should be fixed or deleted. |
|
|
|
|
|
is a link to an . The article does not mention that or allude to "Washington's Covert wars in Central America largely a war against the Church." The article doesn't mention Washington or the US in any way, shape, or form. The quote about "the preferential option for the poor" (at the end of the sentence) is verbatim from the LA Times article, but is taken out of context. The author of the LA Times article was merely explaining Liberation Theology. He did not say that the US was at war against the Church. Such misinformation is very false. |
|
|
|
|
|
is a link to an on www.motherjones.com. First: I don't know much about the website, but it says on there that Michael Moore used to work there. It does not appear to pass the Misplaced Pages NPOV test. More importantly: the link presumably should tak readers to "the 1980 Committee of Santa Fe Report." The link actually takes readers to the Mother Jones website (not the Santa Fe Report, as implied). Only the first half of the quote in the Wiki article is on the Mother Jones article. The second part is NOT in the Mother Jones article (although the Wiki article says it is): "Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist." Maybe it's in the actual report? Maybe not? Can someone link to the correct report? |
|
|
--] (]) 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Nowhere is it implied that it takes you to the report. The reference says Mother Jones. What are you talking about? I only referenced the LA Times article because it explains what Liberation Theology is and why it was being targeted. Take another look at the section. I had to show a large chunk of the Mother Jones article. The editor apparently just took your word for it. I dont think it was read very carefully. No offense. As for the second half of the quote. I'll cite it when I find the original report again.--] (]) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Found it referenced in the which is solid: |
|
|
|
|
|
"U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theol-ogy as it is utilized in Latin America by the 'liberation theology' clergy. Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist."--] (]) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's from the early 80's so it's probobly in the archives somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Robert White quotes in Background Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I relocated these quotes from the Prelude section but I dont really think it fits there very well either so feel free to move it somewhere else. I dont know where to put it. Maybe an FMLN section? Im currently reading Bonner's book and also Walter Lafeber's book so Im just sharing some of it as I read.--] (]) 03:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== US Involvement == |
|
|
|
|
|
The US involvement section need to be halfed at the very least. You just listing every bit of info regarding the US. There is no need. Please cut it down and summarise more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an example quote box, containing some wise words from Thomas Jefferson: "''You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.''"|source=Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, }} |
|
|
It's large because almost everything that happenned in the war involved the United States. Ive been trying to add more to the other sections but like I said, the US is almost always involved. Some of you just need to accept it. Central America is to the United States as Eastern Europe was to the Soviet Union. I dont understand this "too much information" critisism. Cutting it in "half" seems a bit extreme. I can only expect this reaction from someone who does not like what it says. Still waiting for someone to "balance" it out with their own information. So far all I got was some guy who correctly pointed out a missquote (I got the interpretation from a second hand source) but then he overplayed his hand as did an editor. By the way.. Who knew about this stuff before the overhaul? Apparently some people here thought the US was barely involved at all, in it's COLONY. Yes, that's what is. An economically colonized client state.--] (]) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The section doesn't need to be cut (because as Horhey points out, the U.S. was at the center of the conflict), but what ''does'' need to happen is that it needs to be integrated throughout the rest of the article, instead of in its own section. That way, at each stage of the process, people can learn about the U.S.'s involvement, instead of having to wait and get a separate history at the end that suddenly reveals this to them. -- ] (]) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I was just thinking the same thing. I would also like to cut down on the quotes but Im just not very good at it. I could be if I had the time and patience but I usually use this time to read and then share. A lot of books. Got them cheap from Amazon.--] (]) 06:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Oh yeah, and I have a fealing that if there were a lot less quotes there would be a lot more allegations of the information not being supported by the source.--] (]) 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think there are too many quotes, considering the length of the article. One thing that might be helpful is to take some of the more interesting quotes and put them in the {{tl|quotebox}} template, and float them to the side of the main text body. Since there aren't very many images in the article right now, this would help make the article more visually appealing as well. -- ] (]) 07:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Float them to the side? Since this page is still marked as 'needing an expert' I vote whoever edits this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat |
|
|
|
|
|
I added a lot of information to it and within 5 minutes he made it look real nice. That page is under high mantainance for some reason. So much so, that I only need to add one small section haha - "US Media Reportage" - check it out. This page will get one as well.--] (]) 07:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Horhey420 -- Sorry for using technical jargon like that. I created an example quotebox for you in this section, so you can look at the markup. By "floated right", I just mean how it is aligned to the right and the text kind of flows around it. -- ] (]) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh ok, thanks for the tip and the words of TJ.--] (]) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:No worries. Thanks for all of the great work you've done on the article. It's really coming along well. My only major concern about it right now is, like I said above, the separate U.S. section instead of integrating throughout the article. I'd really work on breaking up as much of that as you can, and just integrating it into all of the other sections. If you have some kind of general statements that have been made about U.S. involvement, perhaps keep them in that section. But the specifics should be mixed in throughout the article. Anyhow, thanks again for all you're doing. -- ] (]) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Under construction." Time for bed.--] (]) 10:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Horhey -- I've begun integrating the content from that section throughout the article. I think it makes more sense to just talk about U.S. involvement when we're talking about the other events that were taking place at those times. -- ] (]) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I just got home from 10 hours of work. Looks real good. Didnt expect to see all that.--] (]) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks Horhey. Sorry that some of it is such a mess right now. Some of the section titles I came up with when I was trying to break up the U.S. involvement section are no good -- I meant them as just placeholders, until we better determine how to arrange things. For instance, one is called "Violence in the 1980s", because I couldn't figure out a better way to frame/describe that time period. -- i.e. the time period after Duarte was "elected". I'm also sure that I misplaced some of the stuff as I was cutting and pasting, so feel free to move anything that seems out of place. Some of the stuff doesn't flow together very well now thanks to me moving things all over the place, so it will need some copyediting. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another thing that I feel needs improvement, by the way, is coverage of the FMLN and what they were doing (how were they organized, what was their military strategy, what was their philosophy and relation to other social/political movements, etc.). I'd be glad to help you with this if I have the time, but if you know some resources already, that would be a great section to start (perhaps as a subsection of the "rise of the insurgency" section?). -- ] (]) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few news articles on them which include interviews and an explanation of their goals. It's in the Associated Press I believe. I also have information from books in which they declare their hostility to the idea of Soviet influence in their country. They werent very ideological. They were just tired of being hungry, sick and persecuted all the time. In Raymond Bonner's book it says that Washington didnt care to find out exactly who the guerrillas were and what they planned to do. They didnt care because the enemy wasnt so called "communism" necessarily. The real enemy of the United States has always been independant nationalism which is consistantly stated in the internal documents. |
|
|
|
|
|
This document is from the US State Department and Council on Foriegn Relations' War and Peace Studies Group which outlined a strategy for US economic war aims ("propaganda" and enforcing "restrictions on sovereignty" to create "a more closely integrated world economic order"): |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>: Studies of American interests in the war and the peace: Economic and financial series, Issues 33-61</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>ECONOMIC WAR AIMS: MAIN LINES OF APPROACH</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The National Interest:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>1) the full use of the world's economic resources — implying full employment and a reduction in business cycle fluctuation; and,</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>2) the most efficient use of the world's resources — implying an interchange of goods among all parts of the world according to comparative advantages of each part in producing certain goods.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Statements of war aims have two functions: propaganda and definition of national interests. The latter is undoubtedly the more difficult and is of basic importance, as a failure of propagandistic and promissory war aims to correspond to the accepted view of national interests might jeopardize the entire peace settlement. Therefore, our national interests must first be defined so that promises incompatible with it may be avoided. It is with this aspect of war aims that the present memorandum is concerned.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>: Studies of American interests in the war and the peace: Economic and financial series, Volume 3</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Conclusions:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>In the light of this discussion, and assuming that the United States and Great Britain have a somewhat similar interest in a more closely integrated world economic order, certain general suggestions may be made as to the emphasis of future statements of war aims, and points especially to be avoided.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>1. National self-determination should be qualified and limited.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>National freedom retains its great appeal and probably cannot be omitted from any statement of war aims, but a more closely integrated world economic order will almost certainly require some restrictions on sovereignty.--] (]) 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
George Kennan was head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. In the following document, "Review of Current Trends, U.S. Foreign Policy", Policy Planning Staff, , February 1948, he outlined this basic thinking: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity . To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
So the doctrine is to use harsh measures if necessary to ensure US control over 50% of the resources, and it's exploitation of the world. It also warns that objectives such as defense of human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization are incompatible with these goals so they should accept the fact that they will not be liked by the "unpeople" for maintaining the disparity.--] (]) 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the words of : |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>"Following World War II the United States assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system. American leaders tried to reshape the world to fit U.S. needs and standards. Throughout Latin America US policymakers worked to expand U.S. influence. Both the Harry S. Truman and the Dwight D. Eisenhower administrations sought a favorable climate for US business and private investment, encouraged US access to raw materials (especially oil and other strategic minerals), resisted "excessive industrial development," and they condemned government intervention and interference in the economy. According to these officials economic nationalism injured U.S. business. They perceived American security and continuing prosperity as being dependant upon the maintenance of a strong international economy with free access to markets and raw materials."--] (]) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary of War Henry Stimson in May 1945 explained how we must eliminate and dismantle regional systems dominated by any other power, particularly the British, while maintaining and extending our own system. He with regard to Latin America as follows: "I think that it's not asking too much to have our little region over here which never has bothered anybody."--] (]) 05:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Master of the Hemisphere what was called the "Economic Charter for the Americas", which would "eliminate economic nationalism in all its forms": |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>ELIMINATION OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>In order that international economic collaboration may be realistic and effective, to work for the elimination of economic nationalism in all its forms. The American republics here represented should by amendment or repeal of burdensome laws and regulations, encourage full utilization of the enterprises, technical knowledge, and capital of other countries in their economic development and should seek to remove discriminations which are imposed on the grounds of nationality against foreign persons or their skills, or against foreign capital.--] (]) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
A CIA National Intelligence Estimate warned of the threat of pressures of social unrest and nationalism and the trend toward nationalist regimes that are responsive to the popular demands of the depressed masses of the population: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>To identify the factors affecting Latin American political stability and cooperation with the United States, and to estimate the trends likely to affect Latin American political and military cooperation and the availability of Latin American strategic resources. The political instability now trident in Latin America results from serious disturbance of the traditional social order by new economic and social forces. The principal political trend in Latin America is toward nationalistic regimes maintained in large part by demagogic appeal to the depressed masses of the population. The pressures of social unrest and nationalism make it difficult for Latin American governments to render on all occasions the degree of diplomatic or economic support desired by the United States. Latin America has traditionally served as supplier of raw materials and foodstuffs to the highly industrialised countries of North America and Europe, and has depended on those countries for nearly all of it's requirements of manufactured products. The Latin Americans, however, are no longer willing to accept what they describe as colonial economic status. They seek greater degree of economic independance and stability through such measures as protective tariffs, exchange restrictions, export controls, and government sponsored industrialization. Eventually the trend toward nationalism, if it continues, will seriously affect Hemisphere solidarity and US security interests in Latin America . Latin American strategic raw materials will continue to be available, although the governments concerned will seek to drive hard bargains in terms of prices and concessions.--] (]) 05:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
For declassified U.S. government documents explaining the role of Third World countries, see for example, N.S.C. 144/1, "United States Objectives and Courses of Action With Respect to Latin America," March 18, 1953, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Vol. IV ("The American Republics"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. The Memorandum begins (pp. 6-7, 9): |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Statement of Policy by the National Security Council</blockquote> |
|
|
<blockquote>TOP SECRET</blockquote> |
|
|
<blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>UNITED STATES OBJECTIVES AND COURSES OF ACTION WITH RESPECT TO LATIN AMERICA</blockquote> |
|
|
<blockquote>GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>1. There is a trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes maintained in large part by appeals to the masses of the population. Concurrently, there is an increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses, with the result that most Latin American governments are under intense domestic political pressures to increase production and to diversify their economies. A realistic and constructive approach to this need which recognizes the importance of bettering conditions for the general population, is essential to arrest the drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes. The growth of nationalism is facilitated by historic anti-U.S. prejudices and exploited by Communists.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>OBJECTIVES</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>4. The objectives of the United States with respect to Latin America area:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>d. The reduction and elimination of the menace of internal Communist '''or other anti-U.S. subversion.''' (Death Squads)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>e. Adequate production in Latin America of, and access by the United States to, raw materials essential to U.S. security.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>g. The ultimate standardization of Latin American military organization, training, doctrine and equipment along U.S. lines.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>COURSES OF ACTION</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>7. The United States should seek to assist in the economic development of Latin America by:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>a. Encouraging Latin American governments to recognize that the bulk of the capital required for their economic development can best be supplied by private enterprise and that their own self-interest requires the creation of a climate which will attract private investment.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>6. The United States should also:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>a. Encourage through consultation, assistance and other available means individual and collective action against internal subversive activities by communists '''and other anti-U.S. elements'''. (Death Squads)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>9. The U.S. Information and Cultural Programs for Latin American states should be convincing them that their own self-interest requires an orientation of Latin American policies to our objectives.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>18. In addition, the United States should:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>e. Seek the ultimate standardization along U.S. lines of the organization, training, doctrine and equipment of Latin American armed forces.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Should the inter-American system fail to protect vital United States national interests in this hemisphere, it is recognized that unilateral action by the United States may be necessary. ( in "Shattered Hope")--] (]) 21:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
A later N.S.C. document, N.S.C. 5432/1 of 1954, repeats much of the same language. See , "United States Objectives and Courses of Action With Respect To Latin America," September 3, 1954, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Vol. IV ("The American Republics"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983, pp. 81-86: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>United States general policy with respect to Latin America</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The United States must] encourage them by economic assistance and other means to base their economies on a system of private enterprise and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment, of both domestic and foreign capital, including:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>(1) Reasonable and non-discriminatory laws and regulations affecting business,</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>(2) Opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return,</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>g. Consider sympathetically, but only on individual merit, any proposal by Latin American initiative to create regional economic actions and groupings to promote increased trade, technical cooperation and investment, and to concert sound development plans; with the understanding that any such proposal would not involve discrimination against U.S. trade.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>GENERAL POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>10. The United States should encourage the institution of necessary Latin American government fiscal, budgetary and other measures which are indispensable to economic progress in the area through utilization of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank, the Export-Import Bank, and other appropriate means.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>20. In addition, the United States should:</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>c. Increase the quotas of qualified Latin American personnel for training in U.S. Armed Forces schools and training centers; encourage Latin American countries to fill their authorized quotas for the U.S. Military and Naval Academies; and provide and encourage Latin American countries to fill a similar quota for the Air Force Academy.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>d. Foster closer relations between Latin American and U.S. military personnel in order to increase the understanding of, and orientation toward, U.S. objectives on the part of the Latin American military, recognizing that the military establishments of most Latin American states play an influential role in government.--] (]) 22:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</blockquote>--] (]) 05:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Breathtaking huh?--] (]) 06:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Could you if it is not too much too ask add a few counter points (i.e. defending the Reagan Doctrine) such as quotes defending containment in El Salvador (not defending collusion with death squads). I think it would make far balanced an neutral since I don't really see any defense. Other than that the rest of changes made have been very good. Also as someone said above their need to be more description of Rebel forces (tactics, ideology, atrocities). |
|
|
|
|
|
Also more stuff regarding support for Christian democrats as opposed to right wing extremists |
|
|
|
|
|
Some stuff (from bognador blog): |
|
|
America supported the centrist Christian Democrats, who were targets of death squads. The security forces were split between reformists and right-wing extremists, who used death squads to stop political and economic change. The Carter Administration repeatedly intervened to prevent right-wing coups. The Reagan Administration repeatedly threatened aid suspensions to halt right-wing atrocities. As a result, the death squads made plans to kill the American Ambassador. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sources:Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1982 (Christian Democrats killed); Washington Post, February 24, July 13, 1980 (Carter); New York Times, November 20, 26, December 12, 1983 (Reagan); New York Times, |
|
|
|
|
|
Also stuff regarding decline of violence in El Salvador in late 80s |
|
|
|
|
|
Some stuff: |
|
|
Atrocities fell as military aid increased. The UN Truth Commission received direct complaints of almost 2,600 victims of serious violence occurring in 1980. It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sources: Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, UN Security Council S/25500, April 1, 1993, |
|
|
pp29, 36. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway changes so far are quite good. Keep it up <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
All that has already been addressed and explained. Duarte was a Christian Democrat but under US pressure he governed as an ARENA. I have an article on that by the International Monetary Fund. After Duarte came Christiani who was an ARENA. Death squad victims declined as oppostion activity declined: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> "The documents show that Washington not only was aware of the Guatemalan military's excesses against civilians but continued to support it – sometimes openly, sometimes not – throughout the bloodiest days of the conflict, which killed 200,000 people."</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
One would also have to ignore US policy of "draining the sea." It is difficult to do everything you ask when you know these things, for risk of contributing to the continuation of a "bewildered herd." (Walter Lippmann)--] (]) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mate I've heard of much of what you have mentioned. Im not denying CIA collusion with death squads, US support for illegal military tactics or general support for El Salvadoran government, there just really needs to be more counterpoints so that it is actually neutral or balanced. As in why the US would favor government victory as opposed to rebel victory(not why US would support civilian murder). It isn't much to ask is it. Tbf I highly doubt you'll actually do this but please to so the article actually meets wiki standards. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Why arent you signing your comments? The motives for the war have already been explained but it's apparently over your head. If you want to show their publicly stated reasons you can do it yourself. I wont mess with it. It'll just end up as fluff.--] (]) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh sorry I always forget it sign my comments. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Also how can you say this "it's apparently over your head". How can you claim that I have limited understanding of the war? Allo I am asking is that you make the article more neutral and balanced. |
|
|
|
|
|
You did it again. WHO ARE YOU????--] (]) 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Mate chill my IP is 89.168.119.251. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know who you are now. This is from YOU: |
|
|
|
|
|
Horhey420TheTimesAreAChanging You should take at look at these pages if your concerned about NPOV, bad sourcing and/or too much info: |
|
|
|
|
|
Guatemalan Civil War |
|
|
|
|
|
Salvadoran Civil War |
|
|
|
|
|
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état |
|
|
|
|
|
The user Horhey420 who added a lot to the Foreign Policy of Reagan added a lot of info to these pages. It is quite alot of good info but he has made little attmept to add counterpoints (defenses of Reagan and Carter) and I think the articles may end up violating neutrality. There really need to be some defense of US policy because virtually all of the quotes are condemnations of US policy. Think you might be interested to take a look. Stumink |
|
|
|
|
|
I may do so. The Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration article was just such a mess; it read more like a blog, and I couldn't ignore the problems. I figured that there were other slanted articles, but I'll just have to see how bad the bias is and how much time I have to fight for any changes. I will say, though, that the third article you listed isn't particularly egregious. In any case, thanks for your suggestion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
You went to the SAME editor that censored ALL my information on another page. You want to "balance" it out so badly? Do it yourself. I will not mess with it. I welcome it so get to work.--] (]) 16:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, since you're so concerned about balance, you may want to work on the Pol Pot page and offer some defense of his policies.--] (]) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Im not trying to defend the actually action of killing innocent civilians. And don't you think it awfully Hyperbolic to compare Pol Pot to US support for El Salvador against a leftis rebellion. That seems an extreme comparison and completely irrelevant to what I was talking again. Supporting the Reagan doctrine of containment of communism is nothing compared to supporting Pol Pot. You're being ridiculous in mentioning Pol Pot. If you havent noticed I at no point expressed support for terrorism against civilians. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway thanks for your edits, Im just trying to help.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
"Containment of communism" it was not. Your basic premise is false and is based on Administration pretext. Like I said. Get to work.--] (]) 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I was saying defending "Containment of communism" of wasn't the same as defending Pol Pot killing 2.5 million. Also how is supporting right wing government against leftist rebellions(rebellions that are percieved as communist) not an attempt at rollback of communism. What do you think were the reasons for supporting El Salvador? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is in front of you. The Only thing that's missing is the internal version of the domino theory but I have to go to work. Look at FMLN party. They are democratic socialists not Marxist-Leninists--] (]) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Im sure your right that they were democratic socialists but that doesn't mean US support for El Salavdor wasn't because of "Containment of communism" or "Rollback". As far as Im concerned support for right wing governments in the cold war was a component "Containment of communism". Regardless the FLN were far leftist and contained the communist party. You know the CIA, any reasonably leftist militant organization (especially one that contains the a communist wing) will generally be opposed due to fear of development like that of Cuba. So I think "Containment of communism" is probably the reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway what do you mean by this "The Only thing that's missing is the internal version of the domino theory". |
|
|
|
|
|
You're just going to pretend you didnt see it anyways. I have to go.--] (]) 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Come on stop being so confusing. Just answer please. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Fine you don't need to answer. There is little point discussing the Salvadoran Civil War. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::What a strange conversation. It's just a notch above the comments section on Youtube. ] appears totally incapable of objectivity, as usual. I always enjoy seeing him take out of context quotes that really say nothing surprising and then treat them as some sort of revelation. I'm no longer surprised by the rambling nature of the section on US involvement in the ] now that I know ''he'' wrote it, because nothing he edits ends up even remotely coherent or above blog quality. And then we have ], who steadfastly refuses to sign his comments, despite being to do so in the past. Even as ], he still to sign his comments. Although I noticed his "secret identity" a few days ago, I may as well take this opportunity to ask him: Why do you bother with the charade of being two different editors? As for Horhey420, I would suggest ''After the Cataclysm'' or ''Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution'' by your heroes (Chomsky, Porter, Herman) for a defense of Pol Pot.] (]) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I always forget to login and never bother sign my comments (it does it automatically so I never bother). I actually did edit the section you mention on ] regarding US involvement. I edited the section regarding Indonesian requests to arm "Moslem and Nationalist Youths" to "exterminate the PKI". Regardless cheers for checking this page out after I mentioned it to you. |
|
|
] (]) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Removal of U.S. from belligerents== |
|
|
"''United States support to El Salvador began in 1981. Three mobile training teams (MTTs) of military advisers provided infantry, artillery, and military intelligence instruction.2 Service support advisers on 1-year tours augmented these limited-duration (3- month) MTTs. Typical service branches were infantry, Special Forces (SF), and military intelligence officers, usually majors, captains, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), or warrant officers with linguistic capabilities. Some were Latin American foreign area officers, and most SF personnel had served exclusively in Latin America. |
|
|
|
|
|
''U.S. military advisers populated the entire ESAF from joint headquarters to brigades. Two officers (operations and intelligence) were assigned to each of the six ESAF infantry brigade headquarters in six geographical areas of the country. Personnel were also assigned to the ESAF artillery headquarters, the logistics center, and the national training center. Their mission was to support their Salvadoran counterparts in establishing training programs and to assist in the military decisionmaking process and in staff and operational matters. In San Salvador, El Salvador's capital, U.S. Army combat and combat support majors and lieutenant colonels supported key ESAF joint staff elements while quietly and discreetly prosecuting the war operationally and with intelligence."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. military personnel were clearly directly involved in the conflict on one side, and thus should be included in the list. Unless you've got evidence that this is not true, stop removing the U.S. from the list of belligerents. I'll give you a day or so to come up with some type of explanation, and then I'm going to re-add it. -- ] (]) 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
− |
|
|
Obviously they were helping the prosecute the war but I thought the belligerants was for sides that directly participated in the war(ie thought). Tbf Im not bothered either ay you can add it. Also then wouldn't Nicaragua count as a belligerent since they allowed geurrilla to fight from bases within Nicaragua. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone is changing things that are supported by the available information for dubious reasons. Look at the history.--] (]) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On the issue of Nicaragua. The World Court the administration's allegations that the Nicaraguan government was supplying arms to the Salvadoran rebels fighting the U.S. backed military junta, concluding that: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>"The evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that, since the early months of 1981, assistance has continued to reach the Salvadorian armed opposition from the territory of Nicaragua on any significant scale, or that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period."</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
For being such a justified war some people sure are desperate to minimize US involvement. Which one is it folks? You proud of it or ashamed of it? How about we stop worrying so much about protecting the reputations of political figures who dont give a sh** about you or anyone else? They are not angels or even people with conscience. That's just how the system works. Instead, let's all start caring more about the victms of this war. Give them a voice. That's what a good journalist does.--] (]) 13:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Domino Theory" (Internal Version) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the answer to "no names" question.. As documented by Gleijeses in "Shattered Hope", (page not available for viewing- check or buy the book), the primary threat to U.S. interests in Guatemala 1954 was explained by Charles R. Burrows, the Inter-American Affairs Bureau officer of the U.S. State Department: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>"Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program, of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises, has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors, where similar conditions prevail".</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
That is the internal version of the "domino theory." It's rational and the threat is real unlike the public version.--] (]) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here. More domino theory in Nicaragua... |
|
|
|
|
|
BBC News put the war "in context": "The Sandinistas had begun redistributing property and made notable progress in the sphere of education. But the US regarded them with suspicion, fearing their policies were hostile to American interests. Former Secretary of State George Schultz is reported to have warned, in March 1986, that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems".<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"> BBC News, 27 June 1986</ref> "Nicaragua is the cancer, and we must cut it out," Shultz said in a speech at Kansas State University.<ref> The Associated Press, Apr. 14, 1986</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
General John Galvin, commander of U.S. forces in Latin America explained why enlarging armies in neighboring client states and stationing more U.S. troops in the region would not counter the "threat of a good example" in Nicaragua: 'The Sandinistas would attack with ideological "subversion" rather than conventional warfare, and "You cannot contain that by putting military forces on their border."<ref> The Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1987</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Across the establishment it was agreed that the US must "contain Nicaragua." The New York Times reported that U.S. military maneuvers near Nicaragua were "intended to deter the Sandinista Government in Managua from exporting its leftist ideology."<ref> The New York Times, March 22, 1987</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. allies in Honduras were particularly concerned. "We don't have a wall to stop Sandinista ideology or subversives," complains William Hall Rivera, the Honduran president's chief of staff. "It won't be a fight over land, but over minds." He adds: "We'll need a Marshall Plan." The Wall Street Journal reporter, Clifford Krauss, describes such fears throughout the region. But "things could be worse. Left wing movements in Central America have lost strength over the past few years, and revolution doesnt seem to be brewing in the region."<ref> The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1987</ref> - Referring to the success of U.S.-run state terror in El Salvador and Guatemala which decapitated the trade unions and "popular organizations".<ref> The Spectator, 1986</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
A Department of Defense official informed the press of part of their "containment" strategy for preventing the spread of the Nicaraguan "cancer": "Those 2,000 hard-core guys could keep some pressure on the Nicaraguan government, force them to use their economic resources for the military and prevent them from solving their economic problems--and that's a plus. Anything that puts pressure on the Sandinista regime, calls attention to the lack of democracy and prevents the Sandinistas from solving their economic problems is a plus." Administration officials told the Los Angeles Times that they were content to see the contras debilitate the Sandinistas by forcing them to divert scarce resources toward the war and away from social programs.<ref> The Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1988</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the C.I.A. instructed the Contras to destroy and sabotage economic and social targets such as lumber yards, coffee processing plants, electrical generating stations, farms, cooperatives, food storage facilities, health centers, including a particular effort to dusrupt the coffee harvests through attacks on coffee cooperatives and on vehicles carrying volunteer coffee harvesters. They also attacked and intimidated civilians deemed to be contributors to the country's economy such as telephone workers, coffee pickers, teachers, and technicians as well as civilians who participated or cooperated in government or community programs such as distribution of subsidized food products, rural cooperatives, and education.<ref> International Court of Justice, 2000</ref><ref> By Reed Brody, 1985</ref><ref name="pqasb.pqarchiver.com"> The Washington Post, Sep 8, 1987</ref><ref> The Washington Post, March 7, 1987</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
More domino theory in Chile.. |
|
|
|
|
|
In an Atlantic Monthly expose on the motives for the US backed military coup in Chile 9-11, 1973, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh quotes an aid to National Security Adviser Henry Kssinger : "If Latin America ever became unraveled, it would never happen with Castro. Allende (President of Chile) was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America..Chile scared ". |
|
|
|
|
|
A secret/sensitive "memorandum for the president" records National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger's threat perception of an Allende government in Chile as a model for other countries, warning that: "The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on-an even precedent value for-other parts of the world ; the imitative spread of similar phenomena elsewhere would in turn significantly affect the world balance and our own position in it. will have an effect on what happens in the rest of Latin America and the developing world; on what our future position will be in the hemisphere; and on the larger world picture . They will even affect our own conception of what our role in the world is. Our failure to react to this situation risks being perceived in Latin America and in Europe as indifference or impotence in the face of clearly adverse developments in a region long considered our sphere of influence."<ref> National Security Council, November 5, 1973</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In an NSC meeting, Nixon told his aides: "If Chile moves as we expect and is able to get away with it -- our public posture is important here -- it gives courage to others who are sitting on the fence in Latin America. The main concern in Chile is that can consolidate himself, and the picture projected to the world will be his success . If we let the potential leaders in South America think they can move like Chile and have it both ways, we will be in trouble. No impression should be permitted in Latin America that they can get away with this, that it's safe to go this way." <ref> National Security Council, November 6, 1970</ref>--] (]) 00:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Domino Theory in El Salvador == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The escalating setbacks to our interests abroad," Secretary of State Alexander Haig proclaimed when the administration took office in 1981, "and the so-called wars of national liberation, are putting in jeopardy our ability to influence world events."<ref> By Michael T. Klare, Peter Kornbluh, 1988</ref> "When you get down to it, we are here to protect American national interests and we have to rely on local armies to help us do that," said a senior American military adviser when asked to explain the rationale behind American military assistance.<ref> The New York Times, April 19, 1987</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
US "credibility" was being challenged by the FMLN. US international relations are similar to the mafia. If one small storekeeper can defy the mafia-don and not pay his protection money then the don will lose credibility and other storekeepers, including major businesses will be emboldened to do the same and then the whole system of domination collapses, hence the domino effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example. In an NSC meeting, Nixon told his aides: "If Chile moves as we expect and is able to get away with it -- our public posture is important here -- it gives courage to others who are sitting on the fence in Latin America. The main concern in Chile is that can consolidate himself, and the picture projected to the world will be his success . If we let the potential leaders in South America think they can move like Chile and have it both ways, we will be in trouble. No impression should be permitted in Latin America that they can get away with this, that it's safe to go this way."<ref> National Security Council, November 6, 1970</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
That's the mafia doctrine.--] (]) 05:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More General Domino Theory == |
|
|
|
|
|
Over and over again.. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the "Rockefeller report on Latin America," the National Security Council warned: "If the United States cannot maintain a constructive relationship in the Western Hemisphere, we will hardly be able to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world."<ref> United States. Congress. Senate. Foreign Relations, 1970</ref> As National Security Advisor ] put it: "If we cannot manage Central America, it will be impossible to convince threatened nations in the Persian Gulf and in other places that we know how to manage the Global Equilibrium."<ref> U.S. News & World Report, inc., 1983</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
-U.S. "credibility" would be undermined in it's third world domains around the world, particularly the oil producing region of the Middle East which includes vital US client states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran under ].--] (]) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Human Rights Abuses Section == |
|
== Human Rights Abuses Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Im going to be adding a lot of cases to this section. Also going to be pointing out a lot of media bias, such as how the temporary closing of La Prensa -a National Endowment for Democracy/CIA sponsored newspaper which openly identified with the Contras- in Nicaragua made the front pages and it was a huge issue in so called "roundtable discussions" on television, Editorials and Opeds but the closings of El Salvador's independant newspapers, La Cronica and El Independiente, were largely ignored with brief mentions in a couple of articles. They surounded one paper with tanks and bombed it, killing a 14 year old boy and drove the editor out of the country with assassination attempts. The other paper was shut down when the security forces kidnapped the editor and an associate, disembowelled them with machetes, shot them, and then threw their bodies in a ditch somewhere. Noone in the major media called for freedom of the press in El Salvador. Probobly very few in the United States ever even heard of La Cronica and El Independiente.--] (]) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
Im going to be adding a lot of cases to this section. Also going to be pointing out a lot of media bias, such as how the temporary closing of La Prensa -a National Endowment for Democracy/CIA sponsored newspaper which openly identified with the Contras- in Nicaragua made the front pages and it was a huge issue in so called "roundtable discussions" on television, Editorials and Opeds but the closings of El Salvador's independant newspapers, La Cronica and El Independiente, were largely ignored with brief mentions in a couple of articles. They surounded one paper with tanks and bombed it, killing a 14 year old boy and drove the editor out of the country with assassination attempts. The other paper was shut down when the security forces kidnapped the editor and an associate, disembowelled them with machetes, shot them, and then threw their bodies in a ditch somewhere. Noone in the major media called for freedom of the press in El Salvador. Probobly very few in the United States ever even heard of La Cronica and El Independiente.--] (]) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== An Imperial Superpower in Plain Sight == |
|
|
|
|
|
How anyone who pays at least some attention to foreign affairs could not notice these things or even suspect them can only be explained as willful ignorance imo. Not only were they never acknowledged by so many, they were strongly supported and defended by the fanatics of the state-religion. Over and over again. Every single one of them. Never a bad war because the magnificence of the United States is by definition, which acted out of purely altruistic motives but sometimes made "mistakes" a long the way.--] (]) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
Im going to be adding a lot of cases to this section. Also going to be pointing out a lot of media bias, such as how the temporary closing of La Prensa -a National Endowment for Democracy/CIA sponsored newspaper which openly identified with the Contras- in Nicaragua made the front pages and it was a huge issue in so called "roundtable discussions" on television, Editorials and Opeds but the closings of El Salvador's independant newspapers, La Cronica and El Independiente, were largely ignored with brief mentions in a couple of articles. They surounded one paper with tanks and bombed it, killing a 14 year old boy and drove the editor out of the country with assassination attempts. The other paper was shut down when the security forces kidnapped the editor and an associate, disembowelled them with machetes, shot them, and then threw their bodies in a ditch somewhere. Noone in the major media called for freedom of the press in El Salvador. Probobly very few in the United States ever even heard of La Cronica and El Independiente.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
