User talk:Travb/Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Half the interventions on your (Blum's) list need some urgent verification. Also, I don't see why you don't count Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua as successes in having a "democracy at the barrel of a gun". CJK 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello CJK

General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order, "Kill everyone over ten," was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. Caption is: "Criminals because they were born ten years before we took the Philippines."

What rock did you crawl out from under? :)

I see you have been collecting gruesome pictures, here somes more.

What the Rest of the World Watched on Bush's Inauguration Day

Vietnam_girl_napalm

Victory day

Could it be that the Communism has killed millions of people, but the US has too? Is it possible to believe both. Is it possible to hold both beliefs--that the US has killed millions of people and communism has too?

Or is an either or? Does admitting American culpability in the deaths of innocents somehow tarnish or lessen the deaths of the Chinese, of the Cambodians, or the Soviets? Why do you care so much about a dead communist who was killed by his own government but justify the death of a communist who dies by Americans hands? How many people died in Ukraine in the famines? How many people died in Vietnam? Why is a dead communist by American hands somehow okay, yet a dead communist by a communist a horrible tragedy?

You wrote:

Half the interventions on your (Blum's) list need some urgent verification. Also, I don't see why you don't count Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua as successes in having a "democracy at the barrel of a gun".

First of all, Blum did not write this article, two researchers did. I know that anyone who does not accept your Disneyland version of American history is in the same category as William Blum, but there is a word called "nuances", I know you know the meaning of the word, but I want to harmmer home the defintion:

a subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude; "without understanding the finer nuances you can't enjoy the humor"; "don't argue about shades of meaning"

Also, I don't see why you don't count Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua as successes in having a "democracy at the barrel of a gun".

First of all, I frankly don't know enough about Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua to make a definate statment of fact, one way or another. Quite frankly, and I am saying something that is taboo to say on the internet: I am ignorant about Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua. I can say that it has not been 10 years since Bosnia. Panama was invaded during the Bush administration, which would make it what before 1992, so if Panama is a democracy now, that means that the authors of this study are wrong. Do some research, and I will email the authors personally if you find that Panama is a democracy. The same goes for Grenada, Bosnia, or Nicaragua.

Look CJK. You bore me. Your arguments are always the same, I can usually predict what you are going to say, before you you even know what you are going to say. Other conservatives, such as User:Rjensen are much more quick on their feet, and offer more of an intellectual challenge. The more I learn the less patient I become with the average Americans who will have the same generic belief system that another 250 million Americans have. If you are intersted, I wrote a law school paper on Colombia and the US's culpability in Colombia. It talks about the SOA and the Torture manuals and Plausible deniability. I was going to write on the Nicaragua vs. US case, where the World Court found (using legalize) that America was a terrorist state, but I am proud of the paper I have.

If you want to spend time talking to me anymore, make it worth my time. It was probably a waste of time to email TDC, because I predicted his tired response even before he wrote it. I believe that gernerally User:Rjensen has the same detremimental view points that you have, but he is a damn fine researcher and he teaches me a lot, and he forces to learn me a lot. Because he puts in the time learning himself.

If you want to put in the time, intellectually challenging me, put in the time, otherwise you are wasting my time. I won't play your peity revert wars and argue how many people really died or didn't die at the hands of Americans. It is mental masterbation because it is a waste of time and teaches me nothing. I usually go away from conversations with you as stupid as when I went into those converstaions, learning nothing.

I know if the Cambodian issue was important to me, I could bury you, and all of you conservative cabal. But I have no interest in the subject.

So research the list that I have on my web page or leave me alone, and go back to parroting what 250 million other American citizens already believe anyway.

But if you prove those researchers wrong, I will publically admit that I am wrong, and I will e-mail the researchers myself that their research is fallacious. My belief system does not rise or fall on what two researchers say, I have gone through two gut wrenching Paradigm shifts in my life already, and I am due and actually looking forward to for a third. I already publically denounced Chomsky (the left's prophet) falacious research. So denouncing two no-name reasearchers will be cake.

I still stand by and believe what I wrote too that got me banned. But, that said, I still think I should have been banned. I wish I never would have mentioned the Holocaust, but even then I should have still been banned.

Signed:Travb 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the photos, looks like someone beat me to the punch, I guess us anti-Americans all thing alike, you are going to have a very sizable photo album. I hope you got the attention you wanted.Travb 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Well, I can't say that I didn't predict your response as I was typing those words. Your response basically skims over the substance of what I was saying and turns into a ranting and raving about photos, Colombia, and American ignorance. I'm not trying to bore you, but if anti-American people (pretending to be enlightened individuals) don't know that Nicaragua, Grenada, and Panama are democracies then they are more ignorant than the average American.

If I don't challenge you, maybe its because you don't want to stick to the subject in question. I talked to you about the Philippines and you brought up jingoism. I talked about Indonesia and you talked about trials. I talked about Brazil and other things, but those are ignored too. Maybe you should try to establish what we are arguing before you write your virulent denunciations.

If what you say is true about the deaths of "millions" because of the U.S., then Communism is thus responsible for hundreds of millions (again, according to your logic which fails to distinguish deaths in war and murder). Due weight, I say. CJK 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bore you, but if anti-American people (pretending to be enlightened individuals) don't know that Nicaragua, Grenada, and Panama are democracies then they are more ignorant than the average American.

Well, thank you. Please provide evidence of when these countries became democratic. I want you to teach me, so I can be less ignorant.

I talked to you about the Philippines and you brought up jingoism.

I also admitted I was wrong about Boot, and added his material extensively.

I also argued on your side, about deleting an unsourced sentence.

I talked about Indonesia and you talked about trials.

I talked about Suharto, then Talk:List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since_1945#Potential_ground_rules_on_the_listestablished ground rules for List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since_1945

I talked about Brazil and other things, but those are ignored too.

I did some research and found some information on the Operation Brother Sam, and posted it on the website.

You are very selective about what you remember from our converstions.

I answer all of your questions. I do not stay on subject, and I am a very prolific writer, some would justifably say a blow hard.

Maybe you should try to establish what we are arguing before you write your virulent denunciations.

Sure, prove User:Travb/Why_Gun-Barrel_Democracy_Doesn't_Work wrong. Please, do some research on this. I have never seen you do any research, on List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since_1945 or Philippine-American War.

I post my ideas on wikipedia because I find that it is the best way to test my ideas, and for others to poke holes in them that I have never thought of before. So please, prove me wrong.

I like to get down to the root cause of things. Underneath all of these arguments, my contention, has always been that you have one standard for the villians, and another standard for American behavior, in otherword, you are a hypocrite. I have stayed on point with this contention continually--that is the underlying thesis in our arguments.

For example: Reading over some of your posts, I notice how you do the classic...sure Americans did this attrocity, but. There is always a but in your sentence when talking abut American attrocities, why do you think that is?

Your response basically skims over the substance of what I was saying and turns into a ranting and raving about photos, Colombia, and American ignorance.

I am sorry for diverging. But although I diverge, I also attempt to answer you, exhastively. This is not the first wikipage with you were I have italizised what you said, then added my comments. If you would like me to stick to one subject, and not go into the underlying reasons I feel you think the way you do, I will.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your contention that I don't stay on point and ignore what you say I don't think can be born out by our history together.

You surprised me by this statment:

If what you say is true about the deaths of "millions" because of the U.S., then Communism is thus responsible for hundreds of millions (again, according to your logic which fails to distinguish deaths in war and murder).

It was a partial acknowledgement that the US has killed millions. And you seem to be entertaining the idea, if but for a second. Sure, you had the classical but justification after this statment, but it was a pleasant surprise, none the less.

Could you simply write this sentence, as I do, with no justifications in the following sentence, but replace the word Communism with the word America? :

I would be interested if you could do this.

Signed Travb 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Nicaragua (1990) [1], Panama (1989) [2], Grenada (1983) [3]. These nations are far from perfect, but are nontheless democracies, having the same government since the Contra war and U.S. invasions. Is this sufficient? Does this prove the thesis wrong?

Thanks for the info, especially the dates--I will ask the professors what they think about your argument. I suspect that the authors have set a high standard, maybe an unrealistically high standard to prove there thesis. If your contention is correct, it puts into question the entire study. Again, thank you for your information. I will get back to you on this. Travb 08:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the "partial acknowledgement", I was saying that if what you said was true about the U.S. killing millions of civilians, then the Communists killed hundreds of millions. However, I personally do not believe either statement. The United States of America has NOT deliberately killed millions of civilians, unlike thugs such as Stalin, who used it as policy. I will NOT write such a disgusting despicable lie like the one you propose above as if there is some "moral equivalance" going on here. That is, unless you have some actual evidence (and you don't). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJK (talk • contribs).

I was saying that if what you said was true about the U.S. killing millions of civilians

Yes, I caught the nuances of your argument.

then the Communists killed hundreds of millions. However, I personally do not believe either statement.

You don't believe that the Communists killed hundreds of millions?

I will NOT write such a disgusting despicable lie like the one you propose above as if there is some "moral equivalance" going on here.

Opps, ran straight up against your ideology. No point arguing further here.

That is, unless you have some actual evidence (and you don't).

How can you know what kind of evidence i have? You remind me of my father, who, when I told him there was a book out speculating that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor, he said in a very stern manner: he was never going to read such information. End of story. You have already made up your mind, before I present any evidence. I am reminded of what Walter Lippman said:

"Having learned from his wartime propaganda how the facts could be distorted and suppressed, he realized that distortion was also embedded in the very workings of the human mind. The image most people have of the world is reflected through the prism of their emotions, habits and prejudices. One man can look in a Venetian canal and see rainbows, another only garbage. People see what they are looking for and what their education and experience have trained them to see. "We do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see," Lippmann wrote."

Our conversation thread on this subject, therefore is truly finished. Signed:Travb 08:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail to Bruce James Bueno De Mesquita

Hello Mr. Bruce James Bueno De Mesquita,

We corresponded almost two years ago. Since that time I built a wikipage around your study.

A conservative fellow, made what I think is a very valid argument, which may actually show that your study was too limited:

Nicaragua invaded: 1990

Freedom house report for 2005: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6802 (15 years after US invasion)

Panama invaded: 1989

Freedom house report for 2005:http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6809 (16 years after US invasion)

Grenada invaded: 1983

Freedom house report for 2005: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6745 (22 years after US invasion)

Are these countries now considered democracies as per your your specifications today?:

Within 10 years:

• limits on executive power,
• clear rules for the transition of power,
• universal adult suffrage, and
• competitive elections emerge.

Was:

• Was Nicaragua a democracy in 2000 (ten years after US invasion)?
• Was Panama a democracy in 1999 (ten years after US invasion)?
• Was Grenada a democracy in 1993 (ten years after US invasion)?

Is it possible that the majority of countries which America intervenes in become a democracy 15 years after US invasion?

Maybe setting your dates of 10 years was too limited?

What would be the results of your study if you set the study for 20 years after US invasion?

Is it possible that the majority of countries become democratic 20 years after US invasion?

...

Signed:Travb 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeding fuel to the fire?

My only fear CJK, is that if this study is proven wrong, that it will only bolster your faith in your beliefs, and make you more ideologically set in your ways, and even more unable to acknowledge the historical attrocities of the US.

In otherwords, by me admiting that this study is clearly flawed, if in fact it is, that:

• instead of me setting an example of how to admit something is wrong, which I hope you will follow.

Instead it will have exaclty the opposite effect:

• bolstered by my admission of error and my public mea culpa, my statment will make you even more ideologically closed and less likely to admit you are wrong in the future.

Unfortunalty, I find that the later is usually the trend on web blogs.

Regardless, it appears at this point, based on my further reasearch which you provided, and my own deductions that I will give you a public admission of error. A (premature) congratulations. Travb 09:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. CJK 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The real problem that Travb faces

The real problem here, I think, is that you want to establish a moral equivalance between the U.S. and Communism/U.S.S.R. You already know, unlike Stalinist apologists, that the crimes of Communism are too obvious to plausibly deny. Your mistake is that you try to invoke a moral equivalence between the two where there is none, that is, the Soviets/Marxists may have commited crimes BUT the U.S. did blah blah blah. Actually, that arguement would work if it wasn't for the fact that the crimes are totally out of proportion. On Lulu of the blah blah eaters's talk page a while back, you stated that:

My wife misses the Soviet Union. I think she is justified in feeling this way. Life in Ukraine is hell now. After Stalin's purges, which never affected my wife's family, unless you were part of the 1% of dissenters who get persecuted in every society (including America), life was pretty stable and decent for the average Soviet, until Gorbachev. My wife, like most Ukrainians I have talked to despised Gorbachev.

While I have the deepest sympathy for your wife and the situatuion in Ukraine, I couldn't help but notice the "1%" line. Thus according to you, 2 million Americans and Soviets were murdered by their government in the same exact period. If you have any proof that 2 million Americans were killed by their government at the time or that anything less than 8 million Soviets were murdered, then I will admit I'm wrong when I say you have acted as a Stalinist apologist in that you downplay the crimes of the Communists, not completely or unreasonably, but just to a level which you can upplay the crimes of America to equal levels.

Here's another example: You have constantly made references to the "two million" Vietnamese killed by the U.S. in the Vietnam war. Forget about the fact that the war was started by the Viet Minh (or French depending how one spins it) back in 1946. Considering that "two million" was the "grand-total" number of deaths in the war, you not only make the assumption that all deaths were against the enemy and all civilian, but that every single person in the war was killed by an American.

Colombia: I don't know anything about Colombia. But really Travb. Tell me what we did that was really "that bad". Torture Manuals? As if they didn't torture people already. Aiding corrupt governments? True, but that was to stop a FARC victory, no alternative there. Covert operations? Bad, but not as catastrophic as you make it out to be. Forgive me if I'm wrong, Colombia is the country I know least about.

You have no factual basis for your claims that the U.S. has killed millions of civilians outside of war.

Just in case you were wondering, I have read some William Blum. I stopped in the first chapter I read about Bulgaria and the NED. He claimed that supporting the capitalistic opposition party was the same as dumping so and so dollars into the U.S. election. He ignored that opposition parties had been suppressed in Bulgaria for 40+ years. That ended my Blum reading. CJK 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the author

Regarding the author of this article. I think I mentioned above, he was in another country or something, but he said that he would get back to me. His article, "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work" was ignored by the acedimia, or at least it seems, so I cannot post a retraction or counter opinion to his views. I will look for a retraction right now. But like most articles which question the very ideology of America, this article seemed ot be ignored.Travb 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Well, as much as we disagree, we are pulled into debate with each other. I will expound a bit more, and answer some of your points.

You already know, unlike Stalinist apologists, that the crimes of Communism are too obvious to plausibly deny.

Agreed.

The real problem here, I think, is that you want to establish a moral equivalance between the U.S. and Communism/U.S.S.R.

Actually, I usually don't apply any moral equivalence to the USSR. I could spend days talking about war crimes of America without every brining up the USSR or communism. I don't think, as I mentioned above, you could do this for five minutes. I think that people's arguments are weakened by bringing up differences. Yes, Yes, sometimes I do weaken my arguments by brining up differences, but notice it is almost always in response to the Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history, Fourth: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue. Posting the Blum quote was a waste of time, and an error on my part.

Your mistake is that you try to invoke a moral equivalence between the two where there is none, that is, the Soviets/Marxists may have commited crimes BUT the U.S. did blah blah blah.

Again, thank you for pointing out the weakness in my arguments. I wish that we could talk about the bombing of drissden, without bringing up the attrocities of the nazis. Unfortunatly, you can't go for five minutes without some patriotic American bringing up such actions. That somehow the Nazi's war crimes lessened the American war crimes. That is fallacious. It was actually attempted by Nazi war criminals in Nurenburg. The war criminals brought up some of the chemical weapons tests that Americans did on their own soliders, to somehow lessen their guilt. This evidence was correctly ignored, because America was not on trial, Nazi war criminals were.

So when you say that I am attempting to compare the USSR and the US, I only see yourself doing this: the crimes are totally out of proportion. At least you acknowledge that the US is guilty of crimes. That is heartening to hear.

I was stupid to even bring up the USSR above, and then try to explain what I meant. I usually am much better at staying on topic, and ignoring irrelevent crimes which have nothing to do with the crime at hand.

While I have the deepest sympathy for your wife and the situatuion in Ukraine, I couldn't help but notice the "1%" line. Thus according to you, 2 million Americans and Soviets were murdered by their government in the same exact period.

After stalin's purges and after stalin died 2 million Soviets died? Intersting I didn't know that. Can you give me some source? Or were you refering to Stalinist Russia, if you were, I am sorry I was not clear about this.

If you have any proof that 2 million Americans were killed by their government at the time or that anything less than 8 million Soviets were murdered

I have always stated that the US treatment of its people is wonderful in comparison to the USSR. Two million Americans never have died. Two million non-Americans, yes, Americans has killed two million non-Americans in one century alone. Anyway, I could go on, but there is no reason to, because like I said, it was a mistake for me to compare the USSR to the US. A war crime is a war crime, whether caused by the US or the USSR. The USSR war crimes should be punished regardless of the war crimes of the US, and vice versa.

I hope this clarifies my position. Lets talk about the USSR and the US in seperate conversations from now on, not in the same one, because inevitably we begin the who is better arguement, and who is less of a war criminal argument, which is truly pointless. War crimes are war crimes.

A defendant on trial for murder is not allowed to use another killers murders as a defense, the Nerenburg murders were not allowed to use other country's war crimes as a defense, and neither should we.Travb 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that your spending 99% of your time attacking the people commiting less than 1% of the crimes. CJK 20:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A war crime is a war crime. I will not argue whether the US percentage of crimes in the world is 1% or 100% or any number in between, because this is a fools errend which simply diverts attention from the war crimes.

CJK, When you argue how much a country commits war crimes, I shiver inside. It is simply a new way to do what you have done all along: justify war crimes, and once again, divert attention from the war crimes.

Why can an individual commit horrible acts of violence and be roundly condemned, yet a country committing attrocities on a scale far surpassing an act of one individual has patriotic countrymen always justifying those country's attrocities? "One man's death is a tragedy, a million men's deaths is a statistic."

You are arguing like the Nazi's did at Nuremberg. The Nazi's argued: "The US committed war crimes just like us, or worse than us, so our war crimes are therefore not as bad."

Are you beginning to see how evil this seemingly innocent rationalization becomes?

Signed:Travb (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not justifying anything, I'm saying that the supposed crimes (all of which happened in war) are so inconsequential compared to others that I don't understand why you spend all your time harping on that as opposed to the hundreds of millions of people who have been murdered by left or right wing dictatorships. CJK 21:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I found a gold mine of articles, in doing research on this paper: User:Travb/Why_Gun-Barrel_Democracy_Doesn't_Work#Further_reading If you are interested. The source of all of these articles is the Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations, currently the first link under Further Reading. At least one of the articles supports your conslusions:

Hermann, Margaret G.; Charles W. Kegley, Jr.. "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions 24 (2): 91-114.  Discover that military interventions designed to promote or protect democracy abroad increase freedom in those countries. Uses Herbert K. Tillema, Foreign Overt Military Interventions, 1945-1991: OMILIST Codebook, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; 1997.

Thank you so much for pushing me on this paper's thesis! Thanks to you i found weeks years worth of new and interesting reading material. I will post links to all of these papers over the coming months, and I will share my findings with you.

I love wikipedia!

To say thanks, I just sent this Colombian my three books I used all semster to write three research papers. Because of Wikipedia, I was able to find this Colombian and gauge all of my ideas with a very sophisticated, intellegent Colombian.

Because of you, I found hundreds of articles which I can use not only for the rest of my international relations masters degree, but for the rest of my life. If I would have known that you would have been such a help, i wouldn't have given away two of my Chomsky books to goodwill two days ago, and instead, I would have warmly mailed them to you to say thanks! Travb (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research on article

I have researched the article and found a depressing 6 references to the article on Lexis Nexis, when I type in: "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy"

Two of these references are to the same article, which appeared orginally in the LA Times, written by the authors, which simply paraphrases this study.

The other three have nothing to do with the article.

One is a response to a paraphrased article, in which the reader must have selectively ignored the criteria set up by the authors.

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War has led to freedoms (Letters)

The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario) February 13, 2004 Friday Final Edition OPINION; Pg. A12

I must respond to the Feb. 7 Insight page article, Gun-Barrel Democracy Seldom Works. The quote, "American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in the countries where we've become involved" must come as a complete surprise to the Japanese and Germans, two countries where freedom and democracy thrive.

The women of Afghanistan, now free to step outside their homes and hold jobs, will be mystified. The editors and journalists employed by the hundreds of newspapers that have burst into life in Iraq since liberation, publishing views from all sides of the political spectrum, would be speechless.

Have the Americans made mistakes? Of course. Was propping up despotic leaders in the past rightly criticized? Yes.

What does the current attempt at establishing a free and democratic society in Iraq represent? A unique and refreshing approach that deserves our support.

Dean A. Jutzi

Posted by: Travb (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikes letter and response

(The IMPLIED PREMISE of this conclusion is logically-flawed -- since it "smuggles in" the idea that all of these interventions were undertaken with the intent to create a "full-fledged, stable democracy". The piece also, quite glaringly, leaves out Germany and Japan. [Perhaps the nearly-pure arbitrary "developing countries" is added as a qualifier specifically to exclude them?] --Mike18xx 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) )

US Politicians use the word democracy like a whore. "Democracy is the Free World's whore, willing to dress up, dress down, willing to satisfy a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will."[4] The article is simply showing that the tract record of American intervention has been a failure if measured in terms of exporting democracy. Every conflict that I am aware of, even pre-WW2 the politicans pull out the old whore, selling intervention to a gullable and indifferent US public.

The timeline is post WW2. It does not include WW2. See the external links section, other authors, many authors, come to the same conclusion, using different data.

The United States consistently feared and fought such change because it was a status quo power. It wanted stability, benefited from the ongoing system, and was therefore content to work with the military oligarchy complex that ruled most of Central America from the 1820ss to the 1980s. The world's leading revolutionary nation in the eighteenth century became the leading protector of the status quo in the twentieth century. Such protection was defensible when it meant protecting the more equitable societies of Western Europe and Japan, but became questionable when it meant bolstering poverty and inequality in Central America. --Page 12, 13, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (The footnote states: This is argued in Eldon Kenworthy, “Reagan Rediscovers Monroe”, democracy 2 (July 1982): 80-90

As I wrote in my International Relations paper on the detrimental role of the US in Colombia[5]:

Both liberal and conservative mainstream foreign policy analysts and the majority of International Relations academics hold an orthodox interpretation of American post-Cold War policy as fundamentally different from the earlier Cold War period, called the "discontinuity thesis". Bristol University Politics Department professor Doug Stokes argues forcefully that the "discontinuity thesis" is flawed. Stokes contends that post-US Cold War policy, which is anti-democratic when US elite interests are threatened, is no different from earlier Cold War policy. [25] This revisionist position argues that the Cold War was principally about Northern Hemisphere competition to control and exploit Southern Hemisphere natural resources, in other words, "the maintenance of a world capitalist order conducive to US economic interests". [26] Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, this competition for third world resources continues, thus there is "continuity" in US foreign policy. Stokes uses the US policies in Colombia to test this thesis and concludes US foreign policy has been consistent in Colombia.

US Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss, 1980:

What we see in Central America today would not be much different if Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union did not exist.

Sorry to threaten your ideology. I see you are using many rationalizations, many of them arguably falacious, to desperatly defend this ideology.

Signed:Travb (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the revisionists are right. Sure, we have done a lot of nasty things in Latin america in the past, I disagree with many. But I think when you argue that there is some elitist plot to control Latin America's resources, your arguement loses it's appeal due to lack of direct evidence. In the Cold War, the U.S. helped the Colombian government to ward off the revolutionary threat of FARC/ELN which was perceived to be pro-Cuban. Afterwords, it was for counter-narcotics reasons, however poorly planned you may think it to be. Sorry for barging in. CJK 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

(deleted)

Morton, first of all I see you are studying my edit history.

Second of all, in regards to your own edit hisotry, I have noticed how you make political charged comments on users page which violate WP:NPA, such as this one. Editors are often dumb enough to respond to these WP:NPA violations, with their own WP:NPA violations.

I don't think I need to remind you of WP:NPA again, with another warning on your user page. Travb (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Travis -- this was a serious question based upon the content of this page -- not meant as a dig. If you took it as a dig, I apologize, and have removed the question. No, I didn't come here through watching your edits. I came here because I was curious about CJK. I would appreciate it if you would try to keep things calm between us, and not make retaliatory warnings. You know that that is against our rules. Morton devonshire 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Morton, sorry about biting you.

You can remove the warning I added to your talk page if that will make you feel better. In fact I will do that now.

Things are rather tense right now as you know with all of the edit wars, RfCs, and Arbcoms. Fortunatly we both have starkly different opposing philosphies and views, unfortunatly we have all not been able to figure out how to negotate our different POVs without third parties and "adult supervision".

Add to this a simmering, prolonged edit war that has now become hot, and you have a lot of people who no longer WP:AGF. I apologize if I did not WP:AGF with your innocent posting.

For the record, in regards to your question[6], I am not a Marxist. I think Marxism has some interesting ideas, views, and values, but it is also utopian pipe dream. I am appaled at the nasty and brutal things government have done in the name of Communism.

While in Ukraine, I met a woman who was freed by an Amnesty International letter writing Campaign during Glasnost. She was in a psychitrist ward for years for her political beliefs. I saw first hand Chernobyl, and heard stories of the government coverup and distribution of radiated food across the country. I saw the many plots remembering the 1932-1933 faminie. I am no apologist for any "-ism". Travb (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)