I'm sure we should have let a far-left government stay in power that was so brutal it established a curfew and executed anyone who so much as left their houses on site. Also, the Governor-General of Grenada kind of asked us to
If that were the case, maybe it'd be understandable, but the only characteristic of all you ennumerated that actually seems to move the US into military action is "far-left".
Their track record for supporting brutal dictatorships in America, as well as Africa and Asia, as long as they aligned to their economic interests, is very well-known. Just Google Operación Condor.
And I agree, regardless of whether they lean right or left, authoritarian governments should be deposed; but I don't think anyone even slightly informed on the conflicts of Latin America and the Caribbean from the last years of the 19th century up until today would doubt that the US doesn't care about the well-being of the people of these nations and only interferes, however it can, in their politics and self-determination to protect its own economic interests
Regardless of whose interests they were in, it was still criminal states that needed to go. And in no other case did the entire regional community + the governor general demand that we help invade the country. Don't forget that basically all of the modern Caricom states had a hand in this invasion.
And even though the USA did maintain dictatorships in the area, I think it's safe to say that in this scenario (probably not in areas of Africa and Asia), it was for the greater good. Of all the military dictatorships the USA upheld, from Brazil to Chile, they are now thriving democracies with high standards of living (although Brazil is getting so corrupt that some are demanding a return to dictatorship). If we look at the far-left bloc, like Cuba and their Venezuelan amigos, there is mass poverty, the greatest refugee crisis in this hemisphere, and millions of innocents murdered in Cuba alone - many times more than all the victims of the military dictatorship combined.
Couldn't help but notice that Kanzaz's apologetics didn't refer to anything specific to the Grenadian situation. Did he know anything about Grenada? Was he as upset about Eric Gairy's rule? Were Maurice Bishop and Bernard Coard just the same types of people to him? Did he have any idea about the role Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick played in the lead-up to the invasion? The importance of the bombing in Beirut? Or did he believe that, so long as the government was left wing and the U.S. invaded it, it was obviously justified? How interesting that the airport that was the centrepiece of Bishop's development strategy (for attracting tourists) was, after the invasion, still named after him.
I wonder if tshalla knows anything about the situation himself. For example, does he have any idea that both the Grenadien governor general and every single Caribbean country wanted Austin gone (and that this is the only time that the Caribbean Regional Security System has ever been activated)? Does he know that Bishop enjoyed widespread support and the USA did not even consider touching Grenada until Austin had put his body in a ditch (also destroying the NJM's domestic support)? Does he even know that the airport is named after Maurice Bishop and not Hudson Austin, which is who the US deposed after he brutally murdered Bishop? How about the fact that the date of invasion is literally called "Thanksgiving Day" there now, or the fact that the Grenadiens have literally never elected a party that's even left-wing since the invasion, much less Marxist? The elections are dominated by conservatives and an at-most centre-left liberal party. Try again, your Communist apolegetics are amateur.
Thanks - that's much more specific. It's true - the takeover by Coard (the mover behind this, not Austin, as surely you know) was violent and hugely problematic. There was widespread anger at the coup and its leaders deserved to be deposed. Your comments, however, are hard to take seriously given that you seem to suggest that Washington was uninterested in the NJM up to then - that they weren't waiting for an opportunity to take more direct action than the financial sabotage, particularly the sabotaging of the airport project, and the widespread and co-ordinated propaganda efforts against Bishop and the NJM. Long story short, if you think that somehow the US was (is, ever) a force for democracy and peace in the Caribbean, you lose all credibility. By the way, it's spelled Grenadians. Did the Wikipedia page you checked have that wrong?
You Americans are psychotic. Even ignoring the fact that the USA has regularly supported and even established brutal dictatorships, it is not the job of an outside country to violently change the political system of another sovereign nation. It's imperialism
Who are you to judge me, an American, who wasn't even alive during this time period? I'm gonna be honest, if you're so closed-minded like that, it's you who's psychotic.
mf3, who do you think you are kidding? That's what I thought - having been brainwashed by western media - until I actually went there and asked the locals what they thought of the US invasion. If you've not tried doing that, I suggest you do. It might just alter your view.
I am not sure this logic totally holds up, Cardinal. Stalin is still revered in Russia, as is Mao in China, and of course we all know about the Kim family in North Korea. There is a lot to be learned by talking to locals, but we should still put their views in the larger context to which we have access. I traveled through Cuba for several weeks and talked with many locals. Their earnest commitment to communism was surprising. Many of them really believe in what the government is doing there, but it didn't change my mind that their approach to government is totally wrongheaded.
Their track record for supporting brutal dictatorships in America, as well as Africa and Asia, as long as they aligned to their economic interests, is very well-known. Just Google Operación Condor.
And I agree, regardless of whether they lean right or left, authoritarian governments should be deposed; but I don't think anyone even slightly informed on the conflicts of Latin America and the Caribbean from the last years of the 19th century up until today would doubt that the US doesn't care about the well-being of the people of these nations and only interferes, however it can, in their politics and self-determination to protect its own economic interests
And even though the USA did maintain dictatorships in the area, I think it's safe to say that in this scenario (probably not in areas of Africa and Asia), it was for the greater good. Of all the military dictatorships the USA upheld, from Brazil to Chile, they are now thriving democracies with high standards of living (although Brazil is getting so corrupt that some are demanding a return to dictatorship). If we look at the far-left bloc, like Cuba and their Venezuelan amigos, there is mass poverty, the greatest refugee crisis in this hemisphere, and millions of innocents murdered in Cuba alone - many times more than all the victims of the military dictatorship combined.