> Doug wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 'Cause now it's clear that Bush/IMF would prefer a full blown social
> >> crisis, followed by military coup
> >>
> >
> > Really? After almost two decades of crap about "democracy"? I
> > realize the propaganda machine doesn't adhere to the highest
> > standards of consistency, but wouldn't they have a wee bit of a
> > problem handing a coup?
> >
> > Doug
>
> A wee bit, but not much more than a wee bit. It's already under way if
> you look at FT etc. In Argentina Menem will front for the generals,
> after "chaos", "breakdown", "anarchism", and "terrorism" - accompanied
> by some cluckclucking about how it was unfortunate but necessary given
> how "irresponsible" the Argentine people are.
>
1) Bush et.al. would have to "convince" Brazilians, Chileans, Uruguayans, etc. etc.that a coup is the only way out...would the military in the region resist the temptation of replicating an eventual coup???
2) Bush et.al. would have to "convince" even the (argentinean) military. They are not willing to step on that direction....except for a really small and not representative fraction...
3) Bush et.al would have to convince Democrats, wouldn't he?
Too many "would haves" just from the top of my head...
----
And I write:
Sometimes, I get the feeling from reading people in the US (mostly) on this list that they think the US is omnipotent, that it would a priori have no problem ousting Hussein, Chavez, etc., etc., because it is a "hegemon" and therefore unstoppable. I think maybe some people have been believing too much Pentagon triumphalist propaganda. :)
Chris Doss The Russia Journal