Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Bat: France too.
But the idea of either the UK or France invading the US is laughable - it's less likely than the UK handing over command of their nuclear forces to the US. (Not Hyperbole, by the way.)
Castro and Guevara proved to be complete nutbags when the Soviet Union had to tell them to settle down with the idea of going for blood when the Soviets decided to put their Ballistic Missiles on Cuba.
Those two were murderers.
Being under sanctions by the US was no justification for what they did, as they did it to maintain their grip on power.
so did Batista, the US was willing to look away due to him being their ally, and if the South American puppet states during the Cold War are anything to go, it is acceptable to stop the populace of a sovereign nation choosing to be more left wing than you like because communism, a lot of it was also a case of Then Let Me Be Evil where they were forced into closer ties to the Soviet Union just for survival
advancing the front into TV TropesSorry but Batista while taking out one dissenter here and there never made the use of systemic mass executions and created put tens of thousands in gulags, it was bad for business.
While he was brutal and repressive he didn't engage in the same scale of atrocities that Castro did, Guevara himself lived only for fighting.
Also he was already evil to begin with, he didn't needed to execute thousands because of the US or the Soviet Union, he and Guevara were very adamant on killing everyone who wasn't a supporter or would voice any different opinion. Those weren't on the hands of the US and because of the embargo, those were all Castro and Guevara solidifying their rule by killing everyone who would challenge them and scaring everyone else into submission.
Inter arma enim silent legesYou know how ironic it is that Guevara went from a communist revolutionary to a shirt you can buy online for like $20? I think that may as well be some odd form of karma.
Also, Batista and Castro can be summed up by the immortal words of Pete Townshend: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I admittedly don't know much of the topic, but from what little I recall, Chile's economy wasn't in good shape during Allende's presidency, though I honestly don't know if it was his fault.
edited 29th Mar '16 7:22:19 PM by AdricDePsycho
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?RE: The 1973 coup in Chile
The US supported it for a number of reasons, beginning with their belief that Allende was a communist, and ending with his threat to nationalize Chile's copper mines, which given the brisk business American corporations were doing with the Chilean mining companies was seen as a threat to American economic stability.
So Nixon and Kissinger pushed Gustavo Leigh and the other officers in charge of planning the coup into getting rid of Allende. It was also at their instigation, or so I understand it, that Pinochet was included in the coup—he was initially believed to be loyal to the government and was left out of Leigh's plans. In the end Pinochet managed to sideline Leigh and the others, which was entirely okay by the Americans, who viewed him as bringing stability to a state that was otherwise in danger of becoming a part of the Soviet Bloc.
Apparently stability requires 3000 dead, 30 000+ tortured, and god only knows how many imprisoned or exiled. Who knew?
![]()
![]()
For me the biggest ironies regarding Che is how a homophobic, sexist, anti-intellectual and authoritarian misanthrope became not only exploited by capitalism but how he became an icon for people fighting for political freedom, freedom of expression, women and LGBT+ rights.
![]()
Socialist Governments on the time were high on the command economy and planned economy theories, so I don't doubt that they'd run themselves to the ground without external intervention.
edited 29th Mar '16 7:30:05 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
FDR had a policy of making nice with the neighbors. From what I remember the only act of interference during his administration was backing the campaign of Juan Peron's opponent for President, to the point where the man's campaign was run out of the US embassy. Peron wasn't to pissed at us though, he credited the US backing of his opponent for his victory.
Only half the calories of normal Facism.
A deal to raise California’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022.
![]()
Peron had fascistic policies and was a huge admirer of Mussolini, but he was never as brutal as his idols. His regime committed human rights abuses, certainly, but by the standards of both fascist dictatorships and Latin American juntas, they were comparatively minor. He certainly had nothing on Videla, Massera, and the rest of The Process when it came to savaging his fellow Argentinians.
Actually you could make a far more compelling case that The Process, which never identified as fascist, was fascistic or neo-fascistic, given the sheer scale of the repression, and the hardcore right-wing nature of their politics. Same goes for Pinochet, honestly.
Anyway, the US government's problem with Peron had less to do with his fascist leanings and more to do with his dislike of American influence in the region. As demonstrated by the support that Nixon, Ford, and Reagan gave to Pinochet, The Process, Efrain Rios Montt, and you-pick-the-right-wing-junta. Actually, two of Reagan's favourites, Rios Montt from Guatemala and Hissene Habre from Chad are currently on trial for their human rights violations. May they both rot.
edited 29th Mar '16 8:31:26 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Cruz, Kasich and Trump have all gone back on their pledge to support the eventual nominee.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-nominee-pledge/index.html
I believe the technical term for this is "shit getting real."
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

He was tolerated, not supported.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.