free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

So I'm starting the forum for the reading on pages 30 - 35

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

In the beginning of this reading it talked about how Latin America and the U.S. began to become even more economically integrated, and I feel like this was just a set up for some horrible things to happen, which they did. Basically the economic integration only helped the U.S. and the rich Latin Americans. It increased the gap between the rich and poor in Latin America, and made living conditions horrible. For example, when the Mexican border towns became industrialized, almost all the factories or plants were owned by U.S. investors. There was a huge increase in jobs for Mexicans, but their lives went down hill, and they didn’t have rights as workers or good living conditions.

Another thing that bothered me was how the U.S. helped oust Allende and put Pinochet into the Chilean government, where they supported him and gave him money. Then Pinochet killed thousands of people and denied his people human rights. Just like with Guatemala, the U.S. helped fuck up a country for many years, just because they didn’t like how the government was being run.

My question is: what do you think of Kissinger’s belief that the U.S. should only help small countries that have some link to the U.S.? This is something the U.S. had kinda been doing anyway, so also, what do you think about Kissinger putting his idea out there vs. the U.S. government sneakily doing this with out stating it?

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

It's kind of sad that the US doesn't own-up to their mistakes. They deny their history. Even though some of their reasons were some what legitimate. It's so frustrating that we pride ourselves on legitimacy but never actually stick to our supposed values. We fuel coups when it's convenient for us, whenever it protects our economy from communism. I feel like until our government admits that their previous acts were unacceptable that it's still okay for them to do in the future.

My question is:
Do you believe the government still or will fuel coups in governments they disagree with?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

I think the reading today seemed to have a topic that was a repeat of the readings in the past. Although the reading presented different situations and troubles, it showed the basic fact that the US had a liking to interfering with other countries governments.
Integration with the US was supposed to be the "benefit" that the Latin Americans were getting. It reminded me of yesterday's reading, talking about the "carrot and stick" strategy. While trying to help, the US's true intentions always seem to lie in some other ulterior motives.
I think that it is reasonable for the US trying to cover up their history, since the amount of "interventions" and "help" that they gave is enourmous.
To the question with the US government going along this way, I think that these kinds of interventions have been too ingrained in the system for it to change.
My question is why the US government feels so threatened or have the tendency to interfere with other countries?

qweasd · Joined: 07 Aug 2011 Posts: 90

Please write a minimum of 100-200 words responding to tonight's reading. Build off of your peers responses and include a question to facilitate their posts.

Please write a minimum of 100-200 words responding to tonight's reading. Build off of your peers responses and include a question to facilitate their posts.

Please write a minimum of 100-200 words responding to tonight's reading. Build off of your peers responses and include a question to facilitate their posts.

wellington serviced apartments
land for sale

Free Forum