Go and read this spectacularly ignorant article on Latin America. Key lessons: democracy and being-opposed-to-the-USA are incompatible; democracy and socialism are incompatible; and the USA has every right to tell Latin Americans what they ought to be doing.
The final quote is also a classic of sorts: "South America’s past…is a nightmare of repression. The Bush administration has prescribed democracy as the cure". Right, now remind me who was responsible for the repression in the first place…?
Given historic and current US attitudes and behaviours towards Latin America (clue: very, very bad), US residents are very, very lucky that the only people to carry out large-scale terrorism in their homeland have been a crazy militiaman and a handful of fanatical Arabs.
(via Ryan)
This and the Iraq policy only makes sense if you understand that "democracy" in US mouths means: a western-oriented liberalised economy which is not too blatantly autoritharian.
"Right, now remind me who was responsible for the repression in the first place…?"
Well, it was Chimpy Bushitler, obviously.
As long as crap countries blame outsiders for all of their problems, they will never improve.
Yes, why on earth would anyone blame America for things like American-supported death squads?
Death squads just build character. More countries could use them, and become less crap by enduring them stoically. Genius.
Socialims is the cure for all the ills of South America.
Surely that should be "Socialims are"? I don’t know what it means, but it’s clearly plural.
Good on you spotting that typo, Michael. Turned out to be the foundation for a truly witty comment.
John, you want to hear about "American-supported death squads" (what a felicitous phrase, very catchy), let’s talk WWII: 100s of 1000s of American jackbooted thugs tramping through Germany and Japan, killing millions. Talk about your death squads: what about two nukes wiping out two Japanese cities?
Funny thing is, both death-squaded (squadded? I’d hate for Michael to critique my grammar) countries turned out all right.
Returning to your original helpful post, it’s obvious to all that the first step toward prosperity and justice is hate. If only FARC would hate more — if only there was more hate toward the USA throughout Latin America — then we’ll be well on the way to a wonderful society, don’t you think?
Obviously not. The US is very lucky that Latin Americans don’t hate it, given prior US behaviour in Latin America. It would probably be an error on the part of the US administration to assume this state of affairs will continue forever.
Good on you spotting that typo, Michael. Turned out to be the foundation for a truly witty comment.
Why, thank you!
And you’re absolutely right about "squadded" – your usage being a grammatically flawless rendition of the past tense form of the common English verb "to squad".
You people are all wankers. The internet is full of millions of pages of polemic arse like this perpetuated by pseudo-intellectual cock-asses who have nothing better to do. Correcting people’s typos appears to be another past-time enjoyed by the knob-heads who waste their time posting on these sites (whoops – I’ve gone and shot myself in the foot there). You’re all twats. Have a nice day. Oh and DON’T VOTE Labour.
"I’ve gone and shot myself in the foot there"
If only.
The internet is also full of unimaginitive wankers who enjoy using its anonymity to slag off total strangers.
Johnny’s vision of democracy is remarkably similar to that presented in the USA Today article linked to above. There should be no time spent of discussion and debate, and if there must be, then it certainly should not be ‘intellectual’.
Rather, it should be a legitimation of the power of the ruling groups, and where democracy threatens this (as it might when discussion and debate are vibrant and intellectualised) it should be seen as a malfunction.
Democracy – government by the (small group of powerful) people, according to principles arrived at by discussion and debate (amongst a small group of people).
Correcting people’s typos appears to be another past-time enjoyed by the knob-heads who waste their time posting on these sites
I’m familiar enough with David Duff’s previous postings to assume that my quip would be received in the spirit in which it was delivered. I’m not sure quite why it’s roused two complete strangers to such po-faced ire, and can only apologise for the damage it’s clearly doing to their blood pressure.
But as a token of respect to Johnny, who seems particularly disturbed by it, I promise not to vote Labour.
"Johnny’s vision of democracy…"
I’m not sure that Johnny was indending to communicate a vision of democracy – I think he was just being an obnoxious cunt.
John S:
> Yes, why on earth would anyone blame America for things like American-supported death squads?
Are you missing the point deliberately or by accident? It makes some sort of limited sense to blame America for American-supported death-squads, but it makes no sense whatsoever to blame Bush for any pre-2000 American policy.
People only ever talk in these terms when they’re discussing countries, rather than politicians. It sounds reasonablish to blame America for Pinochet or Britain for Palestine, but it would be bloody stupid to blame Bush for Pinochet or Major for Palestine or Clinton for Viet Nam. As long as you accept that different politicians have different policies (and, presumably, the people who got so angry when Bush beat Kerry do accept that), you have to accept that American foreign policy is not unchanging and that, therefore, it makes little sense to discuss events over a period of decades as if they’re all part of one big plan. People’s tendency to segue between "Bush" and "America" (or, coem to think of it, "Saddam" and "Iraq") as if they’re essentially interchangeable political entities leads to all sorts of silliness.
> "South America’s past…is a nightmare of repression. The Bush administration has prescribed democracy as the cure"
This is in no way contradictory. Bush has now said many, many times that past American foreign policy was a bloody awful mistake that led, indirectly, to the current terrorism problem. While you may not like his new approach, to say that it’s the same as the old Nixon or Reagan or Carter approaches is plain wrong. It’s not even the same as Bush’s own pre-9/11 approach.
Cato:
Though a product of American schooling, I have indeed heard of WWII, thank you. And yes, Germany and Japan have recovered. Thing is, they’ve had about forty more years to do it.
Squander Two:
I think I was intentionally missing the point about "Chimpy Bushitler" and moving on to the point about crap countries having nobody to blame but themselves for their evident crapness. Surely you can forgive people in any number of countries for rolling their eyes or worse at an American president’s mention of spreading democracy.
Do you think it might not be asking a bit much for people injured by US foreign policy to wipe the slate clean at the moment any new president takes office?
John S,
Would you have expected them to wipe the slate clean had Kerry won?
Natalie,
Not at all – my whole point was that US foreign policy is far bigger than any President. And though I think there were substantial differences between Bush and Kerry, it’s not like we had a shot at electing Gandhi. He still would have been the president of a rather belligerent military power, one unafraid to use force to defend its economic interests.
John S. Thanks for answering. My question was largely non-rhetorical: I wanted to know where you were coming from.
I thought I had some argument to add, but as I write I find it boils down to "What Squander Two said".
It makes some sort of limited sense to blame America for American-supported death-squads
I think I may print that one out and frame it.
_Bush has now said many, many times that past American foreign policy was a bloody awful mistake that led, indirectly, to the current terrorism problem._
Has he? Could you point me somewhere?
Jarndyce,
Try whitehouse.gov. It contains all his speeches.
Iain,
The reason it only makes limited sense is that blaming America for American-supported death squads usually involves blaming circa-2005-America for circa 1970-American-supported death squads.
I’ve yet to meet a Briton who blames America for the actions of the CIA and takes full responsibility for the actions of MI5 and MI6. Funny, that. Lots of people who think that the citizens killed in 9/11 kind of had it coming, yet none of them ever think that their lives are forfeit because of the foreign policy of a British government that was in power before they were even old enough to vote.
> Do you think it might not be asking a bit much for people injured by US foreign policy to wipe the slate clean at the moment any new president takes office?
Depends to what extent you want the slate wiped. Should they forgive and forget everything? Probably not. Should they be sceptical? Maybe. Should they act as if nothing has happened? Well, no; that would be stupid. Should they blame Bush for the actions of Clinton? That makes no sense — yet not only do people do it all the time, but lots of otherwise intelligent people excuse such moronic reasoning.
And it’s yet another bit of stupidity that we condescendingly accept from third-world countries but would never accept from developed ones. What would be the response if Spanish politicians were to blame Blair for Thatcher’s foreign policy? Would we see their point? No, they’d be ridiculed, and rightly so.
S2: LOL, that’s lame. I don’t recall Bush ever claiming that current terrorism was partly stimulated by past US foreign policy or that past foreign policy was ‘a bloody awful mistake’, or even anything similar. You made the claim – you provide some proof. I don’t accept it til then. On the main point, I totally agree with you. It’s lazy nonsense to blame Bush for toppling Arbenz or Negroponte for installing Pinochet, and it’s all too common.
"Lots of people who think that the citizens killed in 9/11 kind of had it coming"
Nonsense, only Al Qaeda supporters think that. Lots of people however think that in some abstract sense *the US* had it coming. This might just mean that they thought that the sum effect of US foreign policy over the last few decades meant that a 9/11-type attack was very likely, (though not remotely justifiable). No-one outside minority extremist groups thinks that the lives of the people in the twin towers were forfeit.
While it pains me to say it, there are some people on the (I would sadly have to say very extreme) left-wing in US political thought (and no doubt elsewhere) who *do* think that the *individuals* in the twin-towers (et Pentagon) *personally* had it coming. The argument goes something along the lines of "They directly work for the financial and legal and military institutions that backup US power and screw over other countries, hence they are to blame". I cannot remember the name of the, I think, University of Arizona Professor (there was a NYT article about trying to get him sacked).
Anyway, needless to say, I don’t agree! But I do agree with Larry: one can agree that US policy encouraged 9/11 in some sense, without supposing that the individuals who died "had it coming".
> Nonsense, only Al Qaeda supporters think that.
Wow. Your life must be really sheltered, Larry.
Jarndyce,
I wasn’t being frivolous. It’s been a repeating theme of Bush’s speeches since very shortly after 9/11, so you really can find such claims spread all over Whitehouse.gov. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have noticed it. It’s the main reason I support the guy.
Here’s one example:
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.
Now we’re pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun.
"While it pains me to say it, there are some people…"
Ok. But not lots of people – it is a tiny peripheral (even extremist) position. I was objecting to S2 setting it up as an opinion which a vaguely mainstream British left-winger might hold. It isn’t.
Oh yes, I fully agree that it’s a massive minority! I mean, even the likes of Chomsky don’t hold views like this (and he does seem to hold some pretty silly views upon occasion). I meant to add the word "pedantic" in the first post.
That’s "massive minority" as in "very very small number who are in the minority". Bad choice of adjective.
"Your life must be really sheltered, Larry."
Well, if you number among your acquaintances lots of people who, when confronted with the large-scale mass-murder of civilians, conclude that the victims "had it coming", then I guess compared to yours S2, yes my life is pretty sheltered.
> I was objecting to S2 setting it up as an opinion which a vaguely mainstream British left-winger might hold. It isn’t.
Well, that’s certainly not what I wrote. I was making a comment about people’s attitudes to international politics, using the views of one particular variety of idiot as an example. That being said, I know for a fact that such opinions are held by vaguely mainstream British left-wingers, not to mention some right-wingers, because I’ve met the bastards. But they’re a minority, yes, and I never implied otherwise.
S2: I take my hat off to you. I hadn’t noticed those lines in that speech. Pushing it to say that he’s calling previous FP a ‘bloody awful mistake’, but essentially you’re right. On the specific case of South America, that kicked off all this here, I’d say Bush hasn’t confronted the past, though. He seriously wouldn’t have appointed Negroponte (three times) if he had.