No, history is valuable. It is also important to understand when times change. Democracies have been established all over the world in the last ten years. That indicates to me that something has changed. According to everybody here, the US administration controls everything, so I can only presume that the US administration changed.
> Then it must be a dictatorship, you stipulate. As I recall we have
> NEVER officially supported a dictatorship.
I didn't say we had to officially support them. Nevertheless, I don't know that there "wuz" anything unofficial about our support for the Suharto regime or that there "iz" anything unofficial about our support for the Saudi kingdom.
> ...
> Then, the deposing must be military. Why this qualification? We
> haven't done an outright military overthrow since Granada (not
> counting today's events), but maybe Panama was later. Of course,
> Noriega might not have been a democrat, so you have disqualified
> this military intervention.
No, Joe R. Golowka disqualified it:
> All of which did not elect people with policies contrary to US interests.
> That part of how the US empire works. When you elect people the US gov't
> likes then you can have a Republic. But if you don't follow orders then a
> dictatorship gets imposed.
I'm waiting for someone to describe a case of this in the last couple of US administrations. I'm asking someone to back up this rhetoric with evidence.
> Nice wording. I can't even mention Venezuela today and what
> appears to be our pushing to get Hugo Chavez out of power.
> Oh, sure, I could be wrong. It ain't military, Chavez's
> opponents claim he is pursuing commie objectives so that ain't
> democracy. And maybe we ain't behind it.
Complain to Joe R. Golowka, not me. According to his theory, we should already have imposed a dictatorship on Venezuela.
Do you agree with the statement? If yes, please back it up with evidence. If not, then what are we arguing about?
Paul Prescod