I don't know how you could post those two sentences back to back and not notice the contradiction.
I have a reading recommendation for you.
Posted on 09/12/2002 3:53:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Were a Communist coalition under front-running presidential candidate Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva allied with Cuban President Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to take power in Brazil following this October's presidential election, it would undoubtedly be the greatest Communist coup since Mao and his Red Army proclaimed the People's Republic of China in Beijing over fifty years ago. In one fell swoop, 175 million more Latin Americans would fall under Marxist domination and together with Communist Cuba and Communist led Venezuela would automatically be the dominant power bloc in Latin America with a sizable majority of the population and territory there.
Constantine Mendes, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and former member of the National Security Council who recently preceded me in being interviewed on Howard Phillips' excellent and informative Conservative Roundtable public access program, has written a series of similar, but highly important articles regarding the developing political situation in Brazil. His articles serve to confirm what I wrote in an editorial on the Communist threat back in June. In addition to da Silva's strong ties to rogue states such as Cuba, Iraq, and Libya, Mendes states that da Silva has publicly praised his friend, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "an example to emulate" if he succeeds in getting elected President in October. He states that this would mean that we could expect "the use of pseudo-electoral process and referenda to consolidate his rule as dictator." Da Silva would probably embark upon a slow path of transforming Brazil into an authoritarian, though not doctrinaire Marxist state. He would likely subvert political freedoms in Brazil and change the constitution and/or commit electoral fraud to ensure his indefinite continuance in power as has been done by Chavez in Venezuela. His political opponents should expect no mercy.
Mendes has attempted to highlight the dangers posed by a da Silva victory in the Brazilian presidential elections and prod the Bush Administration to pursue whatever options are available to avert what would undoubtedly amount to the greatest regional crisis for the US since the Soviets parked nuclear-tipped medium range ballistic missiles in Cuba in 1962. He warns of the formation of "a new axis of evil" if da Silva wins the election. Mendes writes that da Silva has spoken of his desire to restart Brazil's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs if re-elected. He reveals that Brazil's military actually "successfully designed two atomic bombs and was reportedly on the verge of testing one nuclear device" when its democratic participant discovered the rogue program and shut it down in 1994. Da Silva has essentially declared his intention to have Brazil join the Sino-Russian axis of nations against the United States if he becomes President. He has also expressed interest in providing Communist China with naval bases along Brazil's long Atlantic coastline.
Brazil is the second largest and second most powerful country in the Western Hemisphere, comprising over half the population and territory of South America. As it borders on ten other countries in Latin America, Brazil would be well-positioned to serve as regional hegemon of the South American continent were it to find the political will to do so. This would be particularly true were it to test a nuclear weapon and become a nuclear power. Brazil also boasts the world's eighth largest economy.
Da Silva has established extensive ties to international terrorism. He has been very critical of the US "War on Terror" and has professed admiration for such widely respected international statesmen as Saddam Hussein and Mohomar Quadafi. His election as President would greatly increase the prospect of a successful takeover of Columbia by the Communist FARC guerillas, which he fully supports. Mendes states that a Marxist regime in Brazil would also be well-positioned to help cause Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru to fall to would-be Marxist dictators and exploit the deepening economic crisis in Argentina, which I recently visited in June, and Paraguay. All told, a da Silva victory could well result in "as many as 300 million people" falling "under the control of anti-American dictatorships."
In 1990, da Silva co-founded the Forum of Sao Paulo with Cuban President Fidel Castro and former Nicaraguan Marxist President Daniel Ortega. The Forum is a kind of annual "Communist Party Congress" for Communists, anti-American terrorists and Marxist revolutionaries to meet together and strategize on how to best effect their plans for Communizing much if not most of Latin America. Venezuelan President and self-proclaimed Communist, Hugo Chavez has become a major power player in this organization since coming to power in 1998. Chavez is probably supporting the da Silva campaign to the tune of millions of dollars while Castro may also be committing hundreds of his intelligence operatives to help da Silva win the election.
Under da Silva's leadership, Brazil would become the new Marxist powerhouse of Latin America and the base of operations for a new Latin American "axis of evil" from which much of the rest of Latin America, beginning with Panama could fall like a series of dominoes to well-supported Marxist politicos and revolutionaries. America's surviving allies in Latin America would be completely isolated. Losing Brazil to a Communist-aligned regime would be a loss that the US could not recover from anytime soon. It would force the US to retool its entire foreign policy and change its main focus from the Eurasian subcontinent to Latin America with a concomitant redeployment of forces to the South American theater of operations (SOCOM). It would also require the reoccupation by US military forces of the Panama Canal and the eviction of its current Communist Chinese tenets for the US to have any hope of restoring a measure of continental, let alone hemispheric security.
During a pre-brief for my last trip to Brazil's capitol last March as part of an official US government delegation, I queried the intelligence community briefer on whether he believed that an electoral victory by da Silva would adversely effect Brazil's foreign policy towards the US. He told me that he did not believe that it would, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Since then, I have determined that neither the Bush Administration nor the US intelligence community is focusing much attention on the threat of a Marxist takeover of Brazil and determining what that outcome would mean for US foreign policy initiatives in Brazil. Accordingly a victory by da Silva in this fall's election will be a wake-up call for which they will be woefully unprepared. The Bush Administration would be well-advised to correct course and take immediate action designed to prevent the unthinkable loss of Brazil to a Communist-aligned coalition government.
I imagine the Canadians might dispute that. If Brazil does go commie, things will be looking up for the economies of Iowa, Kansas, and the rest of the Midwest. Their centrally planned farms will reduce world grain supplies, propping up the prices for the good ol' Midwestern farmer.
Great -- then maybe the farmers could get off government welfare.
That's just silly. No one advocates a total democracy, like what existed sporadically in classical Athens. But some measure of representative democracy is absolutely crucial to any sort of long-term stability. And remember, Adams was writing at a time when every power in the world was a monarchy; that's since changed.
Brazil isn't exactly a major grain producer. They do, however, export large quantities soybeans.
Actually, in an odd way, Lula will be a boon to Brazil's farmers, as they've been struggling to compete with US exports on the global market. Lula's canidacy has already dropped the Real through the floor, and if he gets elected, it should fall further. A deflated currency makes Brazil's exports cheaper, and so they sell more. QED.
Of course it matters what they do. Believe me, I was no fan of Allende, and I'm sure as hell no fan of Lula. But as long as they work within the democratic process, they've given the people of their respective countries a simple method by which to remove them from office. I think Bill Clinton was a terrible President, but if anyone had tried to lead a coup against him, I'd have taken my rifle down and fought for him in the streets, if necessary (although I don't exactly relish the proposition). The means are more important than the ends when it comes to representative democracy.
I don't believe that's correct. Source?
Especially since, once they are in, their children are born in it, and every generation after. It's called giving them enough rope to hang themselves and everyone who follows after.
The government of Panama owns the Panama Canal. A British company, owned indirectly by a Hong Kong based conglomerate, operates the Canal. PLA tanks don't exactly line the locks.
2)China has the world's largest naval base in the Bahamas
How many Chinese naval vessels are based there?
3)The Chicoms are already pouring into Venezuela and plan to pump in 1,000,000 troops into Brazil
Really? I was in Caracas for a meeting two weeks ago, and I didn't see any PLA forces. Where are they hiding? And what exactly would the Chinese intend to do with a million of their troops in Brazil? Take Samba lessons? How would they get them there? I'm not sure what tinfoil weekly you use to get your news, but while China clearly wants to expand its global strategic influence, its not about to annex Latin America.
4)The Chicoms will then back up the FARC in Columbia and then work their way up through Mexico and will be on our border by 2010
Um, right. Subtle. You are aware, of course, that FARC has been fighting in Colombia for 38 years and has never gotten any sort of special aid from the PRC. But if you're privy to intelligence that the rest of us can only dream of, I'd be interested in reading it. Actually, from reading your posts, I'd say that intelligence is probably the one area in which you are most deficient.
5) Argentina is ripe for revolution
Yeah, by the (former) educated middle class. They aren't exactly Jacobins.
Please tell me which section of the Monroe doctrine authorizes the US to remove democratically elected leaders. Neither Brazil nor Venezuela is the colony of any European country. In fact, European colonization would probably result in less-corrupt and less anti-American regimes, but that's a topic for another day. Anyway, here's the Monroe Doctrine. I await your response.
It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . . . . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
Chile, Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, West Germany, Egypt, Afghanistan, Cuba, the local (bugged) CPUSA office, and so on, throughout the world, mission accomplished.
The USSR is dead.
Here's why:
"The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and the spread of civilization. The West will not contain Communism, it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."That's what the Cold War was about, defeating the Soviet Union. If you don't understand this, you don't understand today. Sadly, history is being written by fools who deny it, who believe that in Vietnam we lost a war, that in El Salvador we fought an unjust and cruel war, etc. They were all battles of a larger war. This simple, so very simple insight is like a bright, morning sun.
-Ronald Reagan"It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history.... [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."
-Ronald Reagan
Cold War alignments yet define the world. The mid-east is just another casaulty in the larger war against the Soviets.
For more Reagan here: Ronald Reagan: A real leader with a real legacy
Have you heard of it?
Don't be silly. The Roosevelt Corollary does not set the US out as guardian and protector of the Western hemisphere. It does, however, reserve to us (and only us) the right to intervene should any country in the Western Hemisphere act irresponsibly in erroding its own "orderly freedom[s]." Since the most important "orderly freedom" is the right to political self-determination, any American intervention resulting in the overthrow of a democratic regime would necessarily run counter to the goals articulated by Roosevelt in 1904.
Again, I'd like a precise source, because this is the first I've heard about it. One thing I know for sure, however, is that Pinochet suspended elections. No question that Allende was a bad ruler, but a framework existed for his disposal (the ballot box), and we wrongly chose to ignore it.
I don't know how you could post those two sentences back to back and not notice the contradiction.
I have a reading recommendation for you.
The Roosevelt corollary does not say that we will intervene whenever we want to, but only to advance certain objectives, "orderly freedom" being first among them. And you're too late, I've already read Theodore Rex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.