" In pursuit of American interests, the US has overthrown or undermined around 40 Latin American governments in the 20th Century." \n\n(Quoted from “Analysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America” / BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm)\n\nDoes anybody know the details of this issue ? Why ?Governments of which countries ? What were the charecteristics of these undermined governments? How come can USA interferre so easily to the domestic issues of Latin America countries ? 40 government in 100 years is something serious.
206962
Here are the details. America has to stop interferring.\n\nArgentina1890TroopsBuenos Aires interests protected\nChile1891TroopsMarines clash with nationalist rebels\nHaiti1891TroopsBlack workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated\nNicaragua1894Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields\nPanama1895Naval, troopsMarines land in Colombian province\nNicaragua1896TroopsMarines land in port of Corinto\nCuba1898-Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo\nPuerto Rico1898-Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, occupation continues\nNicaragua1898TroopsMarines land at port of San Juan del Sur\nNicaragua1899TroopsMarines land at port of Bluefields\nHonduras1903TroopsMarines intervene in revolution\nDominican Republic1903-04TroopsU.S. interests protected in Revolution\nCuba1906-09TroopsMarines land in democratic election\nNicaragua1907Troops"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up\nHonduras1907TroopsMarines land during war with Nicaragua\nPanama1908TroopsMarines intervene in election contest\nNicaragua1910TroopsMarines land in Bluefields and Corinto\nHonduras1911TroopsU.S. interests protected in civil war\nCuba1912TroopsU.S. interests protected in Havana\nPanama1912TroopsMarines land during heated election\nHonduras1912TroopsMarines protect U.S. economic interests\nNicaragua1912-33Troops, bombing20-year occupation, fought guerrillas\nMexico1913NavalAmericans evacuated during revolution\nDominican Republic1914NavalFight with rebels over Santo Domingo\nMexico1914-18Naval, troopsSeries of interventions against nationalists\nHaiti1914-34Troops, bombing19-year occupation after revolts\nDominican Republic1916-24Troops8-year Marine occupation\nCuba1917-33TroopsMilitary occupation, economic protectorate\nPanama1918-20Troops"Police duty" during unrest after elections\nHonduras1919TroopsMarines land during election campaign\nGuatemala1920Troops2-week intervention against unionists\nCosta Rica1921Troops\nPanama1921Troops\nHonduras1924-25TroopsLanded twice during election strife\nPanama1925TroopsMarines suppress general strike\nEl Salvador1932NavalWarships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt\nUruguay1947Nuclear threatBombers deployed as show of strength\nPuerto Rico1950Command operationIndependence rebellion crushed in Ponce\nGuatemala1954-?Command operation, bombing, nuclear threatCIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered\nPanama1958TroopsFlag protests erupt into confrontation\nCuba1961Command operationCIA-directed exile invasion fails\nCuba1962Nuclear threat, navalBlockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union\nPanama1964TroopsPanamanians shot for urging canal's return\nDominican Republic1965-66Troops, bombingMarines land during election campaign\nGuatemala1966-67Command operationGreen Berets intervene against rebels\nChile1973Command operationCIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president\nEl Salvador1981-92Command operation, troopsAdvisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement\nNicaragua1981-90Command operation, navalCIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered\nHonduras1982-90TroopsManeuvers help build bases near borders\nGrenada1983-84Troops, bombingInvasion four years after revolution\nBolivia1987TroopsArmy assists raids on cocaine region\nPanama1989Troops, bombingNationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed\nHaiti1994-95Troops, navalBlockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup\nVenezuela2002Command operationFailed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez\nHaiti2004-TroopsRemoval of democratically elected President Aristide; troops
611319
The realities of the oil crunch and energy-hungry nations have forced many countries into a potential global conflict. We can't back away from it but we could limit it by producing alternative sources of power. While the US sanctions the war in Iraq (as a source of black gold),it condemns China for seeking the same in African countries...by peaceful means! The American government has been led by wealth over many years,and the current administration is not an exception. Perhaps we should require a different document....not of independence but a curriculum vitae of elected officials as well as proof of their financial dealings.
631436
I would say that the current government is definitely not what the majority of American people want.  The American system is not looking much like a democracy these days.  I would say the people that do support the actions of the current administration are mostly those that are still eating up the propaganda that they are being fed by the monstrous corporate machine to which the administration caters.  The USA is almost certainly headed for deeper sh*t than it is already in because of Bush's policies.  The idea that destroying a country, and inflicting such massive suffering on its people is making the world and the US more secure is rediculous.  All you have to do to see this is ask yourself what you would want done in retaliation for your family being killed in a bomb dropped on your home by another country's military.  This administration's foreign policy is making more people angry at the US on a daily basis.
3318
For all of America's weath and influence, for all of its powerful media, we are surprisingly isolated from the world.  What's more, we are still very slowing climbing out of the cultural muck that has allowed many of us to believe we are literally superior to the rest of the world.\n\nAmerica continues to behave arrogantly to the world, insisting we always know best, and our interests should be always honored.  It has done a great deal of harm to us the past 15 year in my opinion.\n\nIf only some of us could see ourselves in the eyes of those around us in the world.  Of course, most of us are so conceited and self-involved that we couldn't care less.
64083
Yes. Cuba at the time posed a significant threat to the United States, since it was closely allied with the USSR diplomatically, and was only about 60 miles from Miami, one of the US' largest cities. A war fought there could have meant the end of the United States.\n\nAlso, the Madison Doctrine technically makes US intervention in Latin American politics allowed, although it is a distasteful piece of legislation. Still, it is essential to American national security.\n\nIt was poorly executed because Castro knew what was happening, and the invasion was poorly planned. The CIA trained exiles were also expecting massive amounts of internal help from Cubans, but they were disappointed. Almost no one showed up at the party.
403374
You bring up a good point.\n\nAs I began to educate myself concerning 20th century USA history, a compelling question leaped out at me, '..since all the wars evolved around stopping the spread of communism, WHY or HOW did communism threaten our way of life or our capitalist structure?"\n\nI mean seriously... our leaders felt so threatened by the spread of communism that they literally went to war REPEATEDLY and sacrificed American lives to stop it. Why? If communism is so bad and capitalism is so grand then what is the threat? Wouldn't the ppl themselves reject it?\n\nI honestly think the answer to that question is that when ppl truly do understand the fairness and equality of communism they tend to choose that over the class system of capitalism... that is what we feared. That is my opinion.\n\nBtw, your 80s data is a little off. We didn't have an encounter with Iran in the 80s. There was the Iran/Contra scandal in 1979 but that didn't result in military action. Gulf War 1, involving Iraq, was in 1989.
651745
In an Article entitled “Why it's over for America” the respected speaker provided by your link wrote:\n An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way. \n The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree. \n That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy".\n The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.\n Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home. \n\nhttp://www.google.com/custom?q=Noam+Chomsky&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&client=pub-5174720432180771&cof=FORID:1%3BGL:1%3BBGC:FFFFFF%3BT:%23000000%3BLC:%230000ff%3BVLC:%23663399%3BALC:%230000ff%3BGALT:%23008000%3BGFNT:%230000ff%3BGIMP:%230000ff%3BDIV:%23336699%3BLBGC:336699%3BAH:center%3B&domains=informationclearinghouse.info&sitesearch=informationclearinghouse.info&start=10&sa=N
243670
I don't understand why other countries don't meddle in US affairs - get the drift? You are asking for more chaos. Who regulates the US then? Should the whole world be subject to the whims of one government whether right or wrong?
314542
Woe. Bush meets that criteria!\n\nCentralization of authority. Yep!\nDictator? Call him what you want. Dictator is close.\nStringent economic controls?  Yep. The government controls about everything, including 50% of you paycheck if you aren't rich!\nSuppression of opposition? Bush is known for that. Just ask that CIA agent, or all the records the government seized.\nNationalism and Racism? Hmmm. American language as the "Official" language and just look at the border situation and the fence.\n\nIf he isn't he is sure damn well on his way...don't you think!!
231660
Washington takes into account what is good for the country, I'm posting some facts here and as you can see, if we were to take harsh measures, many U.S. companies would suffer retaliation and there is a great economic factor that people fail to realize. There has to be more enforcement on illegal immigration but we can't make it a witch hunt without getting into a situation that will affect our economic interests abroad. \n\nLaboring in Mexican factories, they receive a little over $3.00 a day, not nearly enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This alone may not surprise people. What is surprising is that more likely than not, these workers are employed by United States' companies! U.S. and European corporations now have the permission and the technology to locate factories throughout the third world. There they do not have to abide by the wage, safety, or environmental standards that are in effect here. Consequently, people in Mexico and Central America are receiving slave wages to manufacture products such as clothing or automobiles that will be profitably sold in the U.S.\n\nA critic might respond, "True, U.S. companies do pay low wages in Latin American nations. But if those companies were not there, the people would have no jobs, no wages. Therefore, those people should be grateful to have the opportunity to make at least some money." This argument sounds persuasive, but is born from ignorance of the history and extent of U.S. involvement in Latin America. As we shall see, the location of U.S. factories there is only the tip of the iceberg. The story of United States' engagement in Latin America is a long and complicated one.\n\nUntil the 1930s, the Latin American economy was based primarily on exporting raw materials to the industrial nations. But in 1929 the stock market crashed, and the ensuing depression spread to Latin America, which no longer had a strong market for its products. Many Latin American governments therefore embarked on a new economic course, one which seemed the most sensible at the time. Because exportation had proven too fraught with danger, these governments tried to achieve self-sufficiency under an economic plan called import substitution. This involved a state-led effort at economic growth, comprising nationalization of industries, tariffs to protect domestic products, and government investment in infrastructure (Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise of Market Economics in Latin America. London: Casell, 1985. ps.15-17). By the 1960s, domestic industry supplied 95% of Mexico's consumer goods.\n\nThe decisive event leading to the current situation originated not in Latin America, however, but in the global community: the oil boom of the early 1970s. With so much new money pouring into the West, banks recklessly gave loans to third world nations, "believing,"in the words of Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston, that "'a country does not go bankrupt' as a private company could" (Green 21).\n\nLatin American nations gladly accepted these loans at good interest rates. Although their program of import substitution had prompted much development, it had also caused lasting inflation, inefficient business practices, and high unemployment. But the loans which seemed like a blessing quickly turned into a burden. At the end of the 1970s the U.S. raised interest rates from the traditional level of between 4 and 6% to over 20% ("Foreign Debt Tribunal - Verdict." Third World Resurgence 107 (July 1999) ps.19-21.) This forced Latin American nations to take out new loans just to pay the interest on the old ones. Something had to give, and in 1982 Mexico announced that it could no longer meet its debt repayments. Other nations followed suit.\n\nLatin America was now broken and vulnerable. Irrevocably in debt to the U.S. and Europe, it needed debt renegotiation and further loans. But with no bargaining power, it was forced to accept the ter
653383
"..meddling in the business of other nations"?!?!?! Are you freakin kidding me? The US is probably the nosiest of all nations and thinks it has the power to fix the problems of every country. Tell your "president" to fix his nation first then worry about fixing the rest of the world! Also, have you ever stopped to think that maybe every time Fox and Bush meet it's Bush who is unwilling to compromise to a more reasonable policy?
583129
Bad distribution of wealth from the beginning.  Too much corporate, colonial, and land-baron greed.\nThe United States was built by pioneers who owned what they built.\nNot so in South America.
204946
In the first instance the State Department would like to utterly refute any suggestion of government involvement.  \nThere is not, nor was at any time, any interference by any except the appropriate agencies, as sanctioned by law. \n\nWe would also like to take this opportunity to reassure all those who may be concerned,  that any and all legitimate factors did indeed contribute to this situation, whilst acknowledging that non-contributory factors had no part to play whatsoever.  \n\nWe have nothing further to say at this time.  Thank you.
465146
That is an interesting point about America from its neighbour. It is a pity that Americans have not earned the good will of even one of his neighbours. They need to have a re look at their international relations and relations with their neighbours.
589826
Thank the pro-hispanic lobby on this one, what it largely seems to amount to is a 'shotgun wedding' between the US and Mexico, and american taxpayers are supposed to buy off on all this garbage and not bat an eye. Since the reverse effect is happening, well it kind of shows that the GOP's head and hind-quarters aren't very well connected anymore, or one has lapped the other, something like that...what this also brings to light, though, is all these other 'programs' that give money away all over the place, Matthew Lesko's dream-come-true, and the taxpayer's worst nightmare, wealth redistribution in the worst possible sense. I think if we're going to help Mexico, it needs to be a lot more metered, and done AFTER the border's nailed shut, so as to minimize the negative impact on american communities. I think when the House finally gets around to consulting the voters on this one, there's going to be a general consensus going back to washington that basically says 'fix the border, and forget the rest of it'. It's a nice idea to try and help others, but if that 'help' is just going to get abused, there's not much point to it. Necessity's the mother of invention, and a lot of the people that originally settled the United States didn't get much 'help', because there wasn't any. Let's not have any more of this 'give away the country to appease your 3rd world business partners' garbage....Mexico could be rolling in money(some already are, they just don't share out) and feed, clothe, and educate every last one of their citizens, probably just off their oil revenues, but instead they'd like to ride the american guilt trip into a split-level condo...time for voters/taxpayers to wake the hell UP and say 'no mas' at the polls, come november...
638727
Ehh, some would point to a certain poster here (the one who said you had no hope) and assume that America never *had* a mind to lose in the first place.  :)  When you consider how much we piss and moan about spending one penny more for public schools, and how popular it is to *publicly be stupid*, like every Adam Sandler film is, or every "Porky's" film was....well, there might be a point here.\n\nNonetheless, I will submit instead that America hasn't lost its mind so much as it has thrown away its *conscience*.\n\nDo the searches your own self, look at what Ronald Reagan *really* had to say about the U.S. Economy and Brazil in the *first year* he was in office....then note how poor and desperate most folks *are* in Brazil.\n\nTrust me, that whole "Greed is Good" culture, that whole "let's let the rich guys own EVERYTHING" attitude, it's long since become a cancer that is killing Western Civilization....and it has been for the past 26 YEARS and counting.
34555
wow, i was just saying this the other day. America has become like a third-world country. Why?\n*Out of control (corrupt) governenment\n*There are many homeless people\n*many people without proper healthcare\n*many people without any healthcare\n*debt of over 8 trillion dollars\nFor these reasons i think america's superpower status will be gone, and it will have more than a couple similarities to third-world countries. sad but true.