|
If you're going to talk about W, you have to talk about mercs
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:He's obviously far from perfect. But he is the only president in at least the last half century who actually did something for human rights in places like Latin America. That alone makes him far better than all the presidents that followed him on foreign policy. El Salvador. Look it up. Also Carter's reputation among people who knew him was always a sleazy guy who told people what they wanted to hear. Maybe he made up for some of that post-presidency, I don't know, but his political career was still no good Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Really though I don't know why everyone always talks about Chile and Nicaragua and never El Salvador. It's also a perfect demonstration of the continuity of brutal interventionist foreign policy regardless of the party in power. A lot of people ascribe the worst of it to Reagan but really in the case of El Salvador that's mostly because of rhetoric - the real decisions and a lot of the blood belongs to Carter, and it's because of the exact same prevailing cold war cynicism and paranoia that infected both parties, and turned so much of Central and South America into a playground for death squads with US guns and US support Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I am familiar with that part of the history. I never argued that he was good. Only that he was substantially better than what came before and after him. Well yeah he's less of a war criminal than Nixon or Reagan, but it seems crazy to single him out for doing something positive for Latin America in particular given his record. He made the choice to arm right wing death squads to overthrow a popular leftist movement, knowing what the consequences would be. How much does it matter that he was less brutal and rhetorically chauvinistic about it than his immediate predecessor or successor? Sorry I just really don't like the rehabilitation of Carter. It's a sticking point with me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Because nuance is important. Again, there is a reason why Kissinger told the Argentine junta to speed up their torture and executions once Ford lost. As Chomsky said, Carter was the least brutal of all American presidents, even if he still would have been hanged in a Nuremberg style trial. A lot of the historiography about Carter's role in El Salvador wasn't as developed when Chomsky said that. Although he'd probably still say it today and it might even be true, though it's really a silly and mostly meaningless metric. The point is "But he is the only president in at least the last half century who actually did something for human rights in places like Latin America." is not a nuanced statement. It's whitewashing bullshit. Carter was a charlatan and a hypocrite, that's all the nuance you need.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 06:46
|
|