PDA

View Full Version : Mapped: The Seven Governments the US Has Overthrown



KC
08-22-2013, 10:48 AM
This has a lot to do with the way the world looks at us. On nearly every continent we've overthrown at least one government. What's worse is that the result of toppling many of these governments lead to events such as political instability in Guatemala (eventualy leading to genocide in the early '80s) and the Iranian Revolution, which gave power to religious rather than secular forces in Iran.

3677

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/19/map_7_confirmed_cia_backed_coups

Common
08-22-2013, 10:50 AM
Why do we keep doing this crap, the only thing it can be is that somehow it benefits the rich

KC
08-22-2013, 11:01 AM
Why do we keep doing this crap, the only thing it can be is that somehow it benefits the rich

Well, as far as we know we've since stopped using the CIA to covertly overthrow governments, but I agree, there are never any sound consequences to these actions as far as regional stability goes. Iran strikes me as the best example of a country where our actions largely benefited a wealthy elite (in Britain, no less) while making the entire region far less stable. After all, the biggest backers of the overthrowing Mossadegh were the Anglo Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum).

I don't know a lot about all of these coups. I've actually studied Guatemala and Iran, and both of those were seen as actions that much be taken to keep the Soviets from taking over, but in both cases a huge influence was private business. The United Fruit Company went on a PR campaign lead by the legendary Edward Bernays to portray the Guatemalan government as Communist and largely got what it wanted: the new government repealed the New Deal-style labor code and land reform that was expected to hurt the company's profitability.

Mister D
08-22-2013, 11:04 AM
Why do we keep doing this crap, the only thing it can be is that somehow it benefits the rich

We supported Mobutu in Zaire (Congo) because he was anti-Soviet. Yes, he was laughably corrupt but what African leader wasn't/isn't?

Our support for the second and successful coup against Diem in South Vietnam was a disaster and, IMO, led to direct US involvement as the South Vietnamese military rapidly deteriorated.

This was all during the Cold War. Rough and complicated time.

Chris
08-22-2013, 11:10 AM
Keep doing what crap?

Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
Dominican Republic, 1961
South Vietnam, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Chile, 1973

Common
08-22-2013, 11:10 AM
We supported the Shah of Iran too and mubarek was our friend it goes on and on. I just wish we would mind our business when it doesnt directly effect the US
Why do we still have thousands of troops in germany and dozens of bases and when it SKorea which is an economic powerhouse going to step up to the plate and either defend themselves or PAY us to defend them.

KC
08-22-2013, 11:12 AM
We supported the Shah of Iran too and mubarek was our friend it goes on and on. I just wish we would mind our business when it doesnt directly effect the US
Why do we still have thousands of troops in germany and dozens of bases and when it SKorea which is an economic powerhouse going to step up to the plate and either defend themselves or PAY us to defend them.

The canned response is that it all made sense in the context of the Cold War. Now that we are no longer worried about Communism maybe we should reevaluate how we conduct ourselves abroad.

Common
08-22-2013, 11:15 AM
The canned response is that it all made sense in the context of the Cold War. Now that we are no longer worried about Communism maybe we should reevaluate how we conduct ourselves abroad.

I absolutely agree that its long overdue that we have a change of direction abroad along with closing our wide open purse. America doesnt have the cash to throw around to countries that hate us.

Mister D
08-22-2013, 11:20 AM
The only difference between then and now is that the US (or western liberalism if you prefer) lacks an organized ideological challenger.

KC
08-22-2013, 11:28 AM
The only difference between then and now is that the US (or western liberalism if you prefer) lacks an organized ideological challenger.

That and the biggest challenge to most liberal governments in internal rather than external as it was in Cold War.

Chris
08-22-2013, 11:31 AM
It makes sense you go back further than the Cold War. See Max Boot's The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power. It starts with the Barbary Wars.

Mister D
08-22-2013, 11:33 AM
That and the biggest challenge to most liberal governments in internal rather than external as it was in Cold War.

External in the sense that the Soviets were doing the exact same thing (i.e. supporting ideologically friendly insurgencies).

Carlsen
08-22-2013, 01:38 PM
Why do we keep doing this crap, the only thing it can be is that somehow it benefits the rich

.
it benefit Israel. USA and UK fight wars for Israel. soon EU will do this also :mad:

.

Kabuki Joe
08-22-2013, 04:19 PM
This has a lot to do with the way the world looks at us. On nearly every continent we've overthrown at least one government. What's worse is that the result of toppling many of these governments lead to events such as political instability in Guatemala (eventualy leading to genocide in the early '80s) and the Iranian Revolution, which gave power to religious rather than secular forces in Iran.

3677

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/19/map_7_confirmed_cia_backed_coups


...it's a liberal thing, liberals want to save the world...

Kabuki Joe
08-22-2013, 04:21 PM
We supported the Shah of Iran too and mubarek was our friend it goes on and on. I just wish we would mind our business when it doesnt directly effect the US
Why do we still have thousands of troops in germany and dozens of bases and when it SKorea which is an economic powerhouse going to step up to the plate and either defend themselves or PAY us to defend them.


...is Egypt better with Mubarak or without him?...

KC
08-23-2013, 10:20 AM
...it's a liberal thing, liberals want to save the world...

Even though Truman rejected and canceled plans to topple the Iranian and Guatemalan governments while Eisenhower approved both plans?

Dangermouse
08-23-2013, 04:51 PM
There's also Nicaragua and Grenada.

Carlsen
08-23-2013, 06:39 PM
...is Egypt better with Mubarak or without him?...

who cares if Egypt it is better or not with Mubarak. Mubarak he is democratically elected so people of Egypt must think he is ok. perhaps it is Israel don't like Mubarak

.

Kabuki Joe
09-02-2013, 10:51 AM
who cares if Egypt it is better or not with Mubarak. Mubarak he is democratically elected so people of Egypt must think he is ok. perhaps it is Israel don't like Mubarak

.


...you didn't answer my question, was Egypt better off with Mubarak?...I'd say it was...

Adelaide
09-02-2013, 01:32 PM
I had to take a course on the Americas (20th century) and there were very few conflicts that the US were not somehow involved in, officially or 'unofficially'. Although I suppose "overthrown" might not be the right word in a lot of cases but supplying arms or support to one side is sort of along the same lines - you're stacking the deck in favour of one side so they'll win a civil war or be successful in a coup.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 02:13 PM
The US has never been different from any other state in that respect despite its anti-imperial rhetoric. What was Manifest Destiny other than our version of colonial enterprise? Mind you, this is hardly a judgment of colonialism. It had its good points as well as its bad.

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 02:25 PM
The US has never been different from any other state in that respect despite its anti-imperial rhetoric. What was Manifest Destiny other than our version of colonial enterprise? Mind you, this is hardly a judgment of colonialism. It had its good points as well as its bad.

Agree with everything except that statement in the middle about Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is a Christian problem, not an American problem.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 02:28 PM
Agree with everything except that statement in the middle about Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is a Christian problem, not an American problem.

It was quintessentially American and not a problem.

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 02:31 PM
It was quintessentially American and not a problem.

From the wikipedia article on Manifest Destiny, and if you don't like that I'll get other sources too.


In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent. The belief has been described as follows:Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; 3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

A Christian problem. And yes, it is a PROBLEM as is the overall Christian Religion's existence.

What kind of God would allow Christianity to plague this earth?

Mister D
09-02-2013, 02:33 PM
1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America;

lol

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, fake Injun. :wink:

Mister D
09-02-2013, 02:34 PM
Grass, this really isn't the place for your silly anti-religious rants. Just drop it.

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 02:34 PM
1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America;

lol

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, fake Injun. :wink:

Good job. Now read the statement in red and see why it doesn't apply to rational people.

2/3 is close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, son.

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 02:39 PM
Grass, this really isn't the place for your silly anti-religious rants. Just drop it.

See you want to get it started but then once I start getting the best of you, you want to stop.

Admit that Manifest Destiny is a Christian idea so we can stop and I can take my shower.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 02:59 PM
See you want to get it started but then once I start getting the best of you, you want to stop.

Admit that Manifest Destiny is a Christian idea so we can stop and I can take my shower.

Your own citation proves you wrong. :laugh: Again, it is quintessentially American. Does that chap your ass? Too bad. Don't get all your ideas from music lyrics and liner notes.

Mister D
09-02-2013, 03:00 PM
Good job. Now read the statement in red and see why it doesn't apply to rational people.

2/3 is close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, son.

What does that even mean?

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 03:35 PM
What does that even mean?

From post #24, and I'm going to try to make this as simple for you as I can:


In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent. The belief has been described as follows:Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny. 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America; 3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#cite_note-1)

The last statement, the one that you ignored, is in the color red. The color red looks like this:

3826

If you read the statement that matches that color, you will see that there is a 3rd element to Manifest Destiny, one that most Historians agree is a basic theme. That basic theme is Religious in nature, no?

Mister D
09-02-2013, 03:47 PM
From post #24, and I'm going to try to make this as simple for you as I can:



The last statement, the one that you ignored, is in the color red. The color red looks like this:

3826

If you read the statement that matches that color, you will see that there is a 3rd element to Manifest Destiny, one that most Historians agree is a basic theme. That basic theme is Religious in nature, no?

:laugh: Grass, you ignored the prior two statements as if they were insignificant. now that you understand the fact that Manifest Destiny was, as I noted earlier, quintessentially American is there anything left to discuss? Seriously, your silly anti-religious rants aren't interesting. Was there anything else?

GrassrootsConservative
09-02-2013, 03:57 PM
:laugh: Grass, you ignored the prior two statements as if they were insignificant. now that you understand the fact that Manifest Destiny was, as I noted earlier, quintessentially American is there anything left to discuss? Seriously, your silly anti-religious rants aren't interesting. Was there anything else?

I never ignored them. And they aren't insignificant. They are just as important as the 3rd part is, right?

Mister D
09-02-2013, 04:58 PM
I never ignored them. And they aren't insignificant. They are just as important as the 3rd part is, right?

now that you understand the fact that Manifest Destiny was, as I noted earlier, quintessentially American is there anything left to discuss? Seriously, your silly anti-religious rants aren't interesting. Was there anything else?