Loc: Syracuse, NY
I agree, that was a mistake on our part. IIRC, Mossadegh was hell bent on nationalizing oil production, and that would have left the Brits out big investments. Initially the US was not keen on getting involved with deposing Mossadegh but our friendship with Britan came calling.<br>And yes, we should have more vigourously supported Batista. And Castro would be denied his personal wealth of 900 million today. <br><br>
The world would be a lot better off if we spent less time vigorously supporting or opposing leaders/governments. Meddling with the natural course of things only asks for a worse situation. The US "lost" in it's intervention. Vietnam to the Communists and Vietnam now has a healthy, growing capitalist economy. We were "more successful" in Korea and left that nation divided and in a standoff that is still affecting the two Koreas and the world detrimentally.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
_________________________ We are what we repeatedly do - Aristotle
And Batista would have had his. Big deal. Supporting Batista would have simply confirmed what most of Latin America knows, that the US forces countries to do what it wants, and if it can't, attacks, either militarily (in my living memory, in the western hemisphere: Santo Domingo, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Chile) or economically. Do you really think that that kind of foreign policy leads to a stable world?<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
hillary has been pandering to the right/middle while she's been in the senate so she won't be painted as a liberal when she runs for president. she's even in cahoots with rupert murdock lately (the murdock of the vast right-wing conspiracy). i can see why i wouldn't like her for what she's doing policy-wise. but i don't get why someone in the middle (where i think you think you fit) wouldn't like her with regard to issues. sure, hate hillary the person . . . but her policies, by and large, are pretty mainstream.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
She's a gravy trainer. And her now oh so advantageous alighnment with Murdoch demonstrates the superfiical nature of her convictions. I don't like Hillary the person and I don't like her politics.<br><br>Most of all, I don't like what her run for the nomination will do to what's left of the Democratic party, whether she claws the ticket outta somebody else's hide or not.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Silk suit, black tie, I donít need a reason why.</font color=blue>
every politician in a national office looks at polls. every politician is apt to do what they need to do to get reelected. such is politix. for some reason hillary can take the policies that made her husband extremely popular and end up getting extremely hated by many who approved of her husband. personally, i am not a hillary fan, but i wasn't a big bill clinton fan either. the right-wing media campaign has really done a number on the public. kudos to them.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the right-wing media campaign has really done a number on the public<p><hr></blockquote><p>And Matt would argue that it's the left leaning media that wants to screw up our heads. Nobody's ever gonna win that argument.<br><br>I don't buy your take that Hillary is unpopular because of some great right wing conspiracy. I didn't buy that crap when she tried to sell it. Politicians are all flaky to some degree, simply by definition. Some sink to the lower levels of the election game, others sail closer to the true course of their convictions.<br><br>I listen to, watch and read liberals and conservatives across the board ~ politicians, pundits, journalists ~ you name it. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that my dislike of Hillary is somehow something that I can't be held responsible for. <br><br>I judge her the same way I judge the rest ~ by their actions as well as their words, by their adherence to their principals, and by their commitment to work for positive change.<br><br>Hillary doesn't measure up, in my opinion. Hell, I can't even call her a sell out because she's always been a self serving gravy trainer. <br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]Silk suit, black tie, I donít need a reason why.</font color=blue>
i think the right wing (and left wing) media pulled strings whether you want to believe it or not. when they used terms like "slick willy" to describe bill clinton it created a character that was seedy and hillary is guilty by association. bill clinton played into their hands with the personal mistakes he made, but "slick willy" is a label that ensures that his even action is placed under a seedy colored microscope. and maybe hillary is worse than the typical politician seeking the presidency??? or maybe she's just scrutinized more because . . . well, you know how "slick" her husband was. <br><br>i see john mccain being screwed by the christian right/bush team back in the day and now he's pandering to the christian right like never before. this is no different than the scheming that you see hillary doing, yet i'd bet most of america would say that they like john mccain because he has this aura of being a renegade senator who does his own thing. whatever. the media can make or break people even when the public believes they are making up their own mind. how do you know about hillary? because of the media reports. bill clinton is seedy and hillary stayed with him only because it helped her politically. therefore she's evil and unique in being evil at that level . . . perception is often reality and in that sense, i agree with your assessment 100%. <br><br>i just did a quick google search and <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/20/newyorksenate.ap/index.html">found this</a> interesting from 2000. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>July 20, 2000<br>Web posted at: 2:27 PM EDT (1827 GMT)<br><br>By Mmarc Humbert<br><br>ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- The head of the state Republican Party accused Hillary Rodham Clinton of being "an angry woman" driven by "blind political ambition" and said voters should reject her bid for U.S. Senate in part because "she didn't send Chelsea to school here."<br><br>In a copy of a fund-raising letter obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, state GOP Chairman William Powers said the first lady has "been at the front and center of every Clinton-Gore scandal, and this has been the most seedy, shameless and corrupt administration in American history."<p><hr></blockquote><p>those kinds of labels can stick. it started well before this quote, fwiw.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.