Was the U.S. justified in intervening in Latin American countries over the past 100+ years?

Was the U.S. justified in intervening in Latin American countries over the past 100+ years?

Were people like Fidel Castro and Augusto César Sandino freedom fighters or power-hungry cynics?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=c3Cec-bzj0Y
youtu.be/a4rG8nmgRw4?list=PLuVm0vFwU7zrZSPCh4f9PV-UNZk8couoL
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They had no business there yet they came for whatever reason. If there's anything worse than German it's the American.

It's very hard for me to understand the right and wrong of it all. Probably because the truth was always sullied by violence on either side.


Hasta siempre Comandante Che Guevara
youtube.com/watch?v=c3Cec-bzj0Y

When the Mountains Tremble
youtu.be/a4rG8nmgRw4?list=PLuVm0vFwU7zrZSPCh4f9PV-UNZk8couoL

Most Latin American leaders are shit but the commie ones are the worst ones of them all.

>Fidel Castro probably noscoped some frags
BASED

Camilo Cienfuegos (based aesthetic Spaniard 3rd-in-charge of the Cuban rebels) was allegedly anti-communist, anybody able to verify this?

All I know is CIA was commiting selective political assasinations in chile while FBI was trying to stop them and collect prove of it, sick two headed eagel

>I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men!
What did he mean by this?

>muh communists from russia!!!!11!

probably this ^

>What is right and wrong is dependent entirely on who uses violence. Whats right is negated if they use violence.
This is the modern male everybody.
Look and weep.

Castro only really became communist because the US was too invested in the criminal regime of Batista, Che was the only one who really believed in the cause, it's another classic case of America being its own worst enemy

He said that before the Soviet Union was even a thing, though.

yep, he died in a mysterious plane crash

maybe he meant friendly to russia or not revolutionary? Idk, what do you suggest?

As I read it, Castro came to power and tried to govern moderately for a year or two, while still making serious reforms. The US and the mafia and the multinationals organized against him, leading him to the Soviet Bloc orbit and in so doing needed to bend the country to a more hard-line socialist stance. I know Castro was fairly Marxist though in his writings.

Way to miss the fucking question.
The US had no place in Latin American politics, all they did was to secure their own victory on the Cold War, with absolutely no care for the well-being of the countries. In the process they managed to destabilize the region even more and plunge most of the continent into authoritarian military regimes that kidnapped people and repressed freedom of speech

>he he meant friendly to russia or not revolutionary?
Revolutionary is strange because he supported the Constitutionalists in the Mexican revolution, he said this in 1913 so it's even before WW1. From what I can gather Wilson implied that the Latin Americans ought to learn how to elect men who value liberty and individual rights, and America will be the boy that will teach them how to do with with aggressive military intervention apparently.

Very often no. We fucked our neighbors up for no good reason. Specifically, we fucked up with Torrijos and Roldos and Operation Condor was a total clusterfuck.

>before WW1
I wish I knew how the world was back then, but funny how he was already acting like current times america back then

The US is responsible for untold crimes against humanity in South and central America. (Including the Caribbean) from the creation of paramilitary death squads to do there dirty work, the phony drug war and support of military dictatorships.
The amount of evil the USA has done can be seen in their protection of the chinquita bananna corporation and worst still Chevron. Chevron got out of paying 9 billion dollars for there crimes in the Ecuadorian Amazon by US protection, they were also able to do said crimes when the USA had installed a military dictatorship in the country.
Absolutely fucking evil, there is no defense.
We here in America need to hold these shitbags accountable, but good luck on getting the corparte media that controls our public discourse to tell people about this.

Not to mention the biodiversity loss we are driving, it could very well permanently ruin our environment. It's worse still in and of itself. We have American corporations selling Brazil to china as I type this.
It's just not fair.

>crimes against humanity

Forced meme. Humanity is itself criminal - if all we did was eat and fuck and give each other cuddles we'd be pangolins and mass murder would be a crime against pangolinity.
We are murderous cannibal apes. Nothing the US did or does is any worse than what happens here or there every fucking day. Getting all uppity about it is senseless.

>chiquita banana

YOU are a fucking banana, bud.
YOU are one.

Justified? If by that you mean with political gain to be made then yes, the interventions were justified since the USA considered Latin America as its backyard and sphere of influence which was seen as under socialist menace.

Morally and legally speaking however it's really questionable.

I don't know enough about Sandino but I can tell you that Castro was a true believer in the first part of his life, though becoming cynical later while confronted to a lot of problems while the revolution did not coming all over the world as he thought.

I agree that all humans can all do bad things, that is an undeniable truth. That doesn't make it any better edgelord.
What separates this from common place crime is it is the systematic crime of a hiearchial entity, that happens to have hedgemony over me and you. I don't know about you but I'm not ok with such evil being done on my de facto behalf.
Not to mention that we are losing everything we have and the living world is dying on us. This is not okay, and any morally apt person that understands the situation knows that.
Now fuck off kid.

>Le American boogeyman
American intervention in Latin America is overhyped.

In reality American power-proyection capabilities never extended beyond the Caribbean until 1945, and even afterwards the CIA's powers never really extended into South America with the exception of Allende's overthrow in Chile where the US played a minor role.

The only ones with any right to complain are the Central Americans: United Fruit's influence in CA countries was very real, and here you can see the hand of the United States in training the Nicaraguan Contras, mining their ports, overthrowing Arbenz in Guatemala or running Cuba's crony politics until Castro came around.

But many of the complaints about Americans stem from the need to find a big boogeyman to blame.

Nobody remembers, for example, that the Contras in Nicaragua were trained in torture techniques by the United States but ALSO by the Argentine Army. Of those two it is easier to blame the big bad Americans.

Nobody remembers the French tried to set up a puppet state in Mexico BUT everybody remembers the Mexican-American War. Nobody remembers the British blockading and invading Venezuela to collect their debts.

Nobody remembers the Cubans invading Venezuela to topple Romulo Betancourt, but everybody knows of Iran-Contra.

Some interventions were justified: Panama is free from Torrijos and Chile is free from communism thanks to the United States

Others are unjustifiable:
There was no reason to overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala or to support Batista other than crooked corporate interests.

Overall, I would say American intervention was a bad thing, but its historical significance beyond Mexico and Central America is exaggerated.

>Torrijos
I meant Noriega.

t. user who doesn't object to his entire city being murdered because after all we're only murderous cannibal apes

You from the US I presume?

Because American interventionism is not really known by the masses in France.

No... I'm from Argentina.

This. I'm from a south american country that had a military dictatorship post-1945.
US supported the coup but it wasn't the driving force behind it.

I guess it must be annoying to hear some people blaming the US for all their problems.

well you can certainly lose the moral high ground by killing a lot of people.

Yeah... it's mostly fringe leftists that act as if US marines had dropped into South America and actively set up dictatorships like the Soviets did in Eastern Europe, when its not comparable at all.

In reality Latin American dictatorships beyond Central America were ALL homegrown. The US never deployed troops in South America and did not intervene aside from intelligence sharing, and economic pressure in the case of Chile. It was South Americans torturing other South Americans.

At least we put the military on trial for human rights abuses here, which was a good thing IMHO. But the role of the US is overhyped.

Central America is a different matter, they truly did get assraped by the US and can have legitimate grievances about it.

in case of chile they actively killed people undercover, the cia hired goons to kill certain people, the funny thing is the fbi was behind trying to uncover the cia behind the murders like good cop bad cop

>Central America were ALL homegrown. The US never deployed troops in South America and did not intervene aside from intelligence sharing
Your ignorant. US special forces have been all over South America and paramilitary death squads get training from our military.
>"A concerted country team effort should be made now to select civilian and military personnel for clandestine training in resistance operations in case they are needed later. This should be done with a view toward development of a civil and military structure for exploitation in the event the Colombian internal security system deteriorates further. This structure should be used to pressure toward reforms known to be needed, perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents. It should be backed by the United States... If we have such an apparatus in Colombia it should be employed now."
William Pelham Yarborough
This quote is after they created those communists by napalming peasant property rights activists during plan LAZO
And that's exactly what they did, my uncle was a green beret who has told me all about it. Last I heard he was trying to move back to Columbia to train mercenaries.
this is just one example out of many. The reason leftists primarily talk about this is because it's hard to know about it and not become a leftist if you are decent moral human.

>Was the U.S. justified in intervening in Latin American countries over the past 100+ years?

Depends on the intervention.

The Panama Canal for example, would have never been built if the region had remained in the hands of the Colombians and of course Communism’s stated goal was the overthrow of Western civilization and as a direct threat to the U.S., we were justified in intervening.

Of course many of the American interventions were purely economic, designed to support Wall Street and thus not justified.

>Castro only really became communist because the US was too invested in the criminal regime of Batista

Eduardo Santiago Alejandro Suárez Martinez, por favor.

This is the same myth that Ho Chi Minh somehow wasn’t Communist until the U.S. made him into one.

I always did wonder how the USA was basically omnipotent in the eyes of Latin American narionalists, enough to casually overthrow the governments of large states like Argentina and Chile and make them totally subservient to the USA. The fact that they had to exert any effort at all in controlling tiny Central America and the Caribbean always seemed to contradict than narrative. If they had that level of power and competence the Cold War would have been a whole lot shorter.