Alright Kady, I guess we will have to wait for the CIA files to be released in the distant future when they are no longer relevant, so people can look back and say *tsk tsk* and then demand evidence of current transgressions.
I’m not sure how that ties in to my comment.
My original point was that the Duvaliers were corrupt dictators who raped their own country. The other poster stated that they were “stooges of Washington”, as if to say that one cannot be a corrupt dictator if one is first a stooge of Washington. That’s nuts, prima facie.
So, let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the other poster was NOT nuts; that what he was actually trying to say that the Duvaliers were corrupt dictators that raped their country BECAUSE they were doing so at the behest of Washington.
I have a very low opinion of the CIA’s honesty; but that’s bridge too far, even for me. So, without evidence to the contrary, I believe that the Duvaliers were going to be corrupt dictators who raped their country with or without influence from Washington,
Look to the past and you will find a trove of similar circumstances.
Right back atcha. There are troves of similar circumstances where we have propped up dictators, and there are troves of dictators who had nothing to do with us. In history there is therefore no lesson.
If you are claiming CAUSALITY between the CIA and the dictator, meaning that the ruler is a dictator BECAUSE THE CIA DEMANDED THAT OF HIM, then yes, I have to see evidence of that before I believe it.
You cannot be seriously suggesting that US imperialism is a non-issue.
doesn’t change that this is what we do.
Granted. If you’re arguing that our agencies promote american interests regardless of who we get into bed with, that much is without question.
But that’s not the question on the table. Various posters have attempted to argue that (a) the ruler would not have been a dictator if not for US influence, AND/OR (b) we insisted that the ruler rape and pillage their own country for racist reasons.
I need evidence of that, sorry.
Yes we use the “corrupt natives” argument to veil our culpability, but that is either frighteningly naive, or intentionally deceitful. Given your obvious intellect, I have to go with deceitful.
Deceitful? I never made a “corrupt native” argument, not in the least. That’s AT BEST a gross mischaracterization of what I said; and at worst, the deceit is on you.