Ronald Reagan

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I think the citizens of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany (and yes I know Czechoslovakia and East Germany no longer exist as such) might have a case to show that there was intervention in their affairs. Those are just the countries where there was direct intervention that resulted in either a communist puppet government being installed or the country being absorbed into the Soviet Union. There are other formerly independent countries, such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, that had been part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until recently. Then there are other countries that have had a great influence exerted on them from the Soviet Union; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, and many more from South America.

Of course, you are correct about direct intervention in the countries you list, of the very sort your describe.

Just so we don't lose site of the unfortunate dual history of superpower aggression, the list of countries in which the United States has directly intervened is also long. Here is just a sample of military intervention:

1890, Argentina, troops sent to protect U.S. economic interests in Buenos Aires

1891, Chile, Marines deployed to clash with nationalist rebels

1891, Haiti, U.S. troops put down revolt on Navassa

1893- , Hawaii, U.S. navy and ground troops overthrow and annex an independent kingdom

1898-1910, Philippines, U.S. navy and ground troops seize the country from Spain and kill 600,000 filipinos

1898-1902, Cuba, U.S. navy and ground troops seize Cuba from Spain (and still hold a Naval base on Cuban soil)

1898, Puerto Rico, U.S. Navy and ground troops seize Puerto Rico from Spain (still a U.S. colony)

1898, Guam, same as Puerto Rico above

1903, Honduras, U.S. Marines intervene in popular revolution

1907, Nicaragua, U.S. troops deployed to set up "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate

1916-1924, Dominican Republic, Marines land and begin 8-year occupation to protect U.S. economic interests

1918-1922, Russia, U.S. Navy lands ground troops five times to fight the Bolsheviks

1922-1927, China, U.S. Navy and ground troops deployed during nationalist revolt

1925, Panama, U.S. Marines suppress a general strike

1932, El Salvador, U.S. Navy warships sent during the Mart? revolt

1947-1949, Greece, U.S. command operation to direct the far right in a civil war

1948-1954, Philippines, CIA directs war agains the Huk rebellion

1950, Puerto Rico, U.S. commands curshing of independence rebellion in Ponce

1953, Iran, CIA overthrows democracy and installs the Shah

1954, Guatemala, CIA directs exile invasion after new government nationalizes lands owned by U.S. companies; issues nuclear threat and launches bombers

1958, Lebanon, U.S. Navy and marines occupy country to stop rebels

1960-1975, Vietnam -- need I say more

1963, Iraq, CIA organizes a coup that kills the president and brings the Ba'ath Party to power, which then brings Saddam Hussein back from exile to become head of the Secret Service

1965, Indonesia, CIA assists the army in a coup that results in 1 million Indonesians slaughtered

1965-1966, Dominican Republic, U.S. troops land during the election campaign; bombings by U.S. air force

1966-1967, Guatemala, U.S. Green Berets intervene against rebels

1973, Chile, CIA engineers/backs a coup that ousts a democratically elected president

1981-1990, Nicaragua, "Iran-Contra" affair

1983-1984, Grenada, U.S. troops land and invade four years after a popular revolution

1990-1991, Iraq, First Gulf War

1992-1994, Somalia, U.S. troops, U.S. Navy help lead "UN" occupation during a civil war, backing one faction in Mogadishu

Shall I continue?

My point, of course, is that there's no clear good guy / bad guy in the world when it comes to the Cold War and its aftermath.

[randolph]

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

Using a "teflon" pans doesn't mean that the food you're cooking never touches it, only that the residue doesn't stick.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

...Shall I continue?...

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

That's the name of a highway.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

That's the name of a highway.

Yes, I know, just playing with words.

[randolph]

I would like to post more of the Stockman article.

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."
Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."
And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Apocalypse?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

I would like to post more of the Stockman article.

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."
Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."
And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.

Apocalypse?

I have long argued with colleagues that the two most important dates in twentieth century history may well have been:

August 15, 1971: The day Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system and ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce.

August 4, 1914: The day "socialists" in European parliaments sided with their bourgeois governments and voted in favor of extending war credits so that World War I could be waged (thus compelling the Bolsheviks to declare the end of the Second International and the need for a new Third International).

What is it about August?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes, I know, just playing with words.

I know, but now I'll never travel on that highway again without thinking of your post, randolph.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I could have listed much more, and specifically left the Canadian references for you, my friend. Note it's the United States and not the Soviet Union your fine country has always had to fear.