No, you tell me, what did America's century-long "control" of Latin America lead to, prior to the invasions of the benevolent, peaceful communists and their Soviet puppetmasters?
America’s century long history of interventions in Latin America destroyed nascent democracies, suffocated popular movements in the cradle and strangled Latin America’s economy by both forcing it to open its borders to American corporations and by taking control of Latin American natural resources.
How much different would Latin America be today if the democratic movements the United States destroyed had been allowed to do what they wanted to do?
We know what happened to Guatemala. After the United States overthrew its first democratically elected government in 1954 Guatemala sank into a 40 year nightmare of dictatorships and genocide.
Did we throw people into death camps or intentionally starve them?
Yes. During the American occupation of Haiti American military forces rounded up Haitian citizens, put them in chains and forced them to do labor. During the American occupation of Nicaragua, the United States forcibly removed tens of thousands of Nicaraguan peasants from their land and into concentration camps so they could better fight Augusto Sandino and his resistance force.
Everytime the U.S. deposed a democratically elected president and plunged that country back into dictatorship and terror it caused the deaths of tens of thousands. Over and over again. Guatemala, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, etc etc.
Furthermore, what was the state of Latin America before US involvement?
Before the United States overthrew Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954 Guatemalans were getting their first taste of living in a democracy. Millions of poor Guatemalans who before could never hope to own a piece of land, send their children to schools for free or vote in an election now could. THAT’s what the United States extinguished in 1954. It would take another forty years before Guatemala ever got to that level again.
SOURCE: Kinzer, Stephen and Stephen Schlesinger, Bitter Fruit. 2005 Edition.
Haiti had a fully functioning democratic republic before it was occupied by Woodrow Wilson in 1915, who destroyed the constitutional system, pressganged Haitian citizens into chain gangs for road repair and construction and established a National Guard which ran the country through terror and torture even after the U.S. left.
SOURCE: Farmer, Paul. The Uses of Haiti. Common Courage Press, 2004
Do you want more examples? Because I could go on. Not that it would matter. Right-wing minds like yours are immune to the idea that the U.S. has been anything but a benevolent force in the world.
So just keep sitting there, denying the mountain of evidence that YES, your country has invaded and intervened in Latin America for more than a 100 years and more often than not it was to destroy and to leave things worse than before.
How wealthy, educated, healthy, and happy were its people before Big Bad America came along? You seem to have this idea that Latin America was some sort of paradise before the zee Americans came along and ruined everything.
Your sarcasm is not amusing to anyone. It just shows how ignorant you are of the issue. I never stated that all of Latin America’s problems were caused by the United States. Our parasitic elites did more than their share of brutalization and exploitation. But your attitude…that the U.S. had nothing to do with the condition Latin American finds itself in today, that it exherted no control or influence over the region…it’s a myth, through and through.
In what way was Chile "subservient" to the United States? Please explain.
Chile’s copper was, before nationalization, largely owned by American corporations. Since copper was Chile’s biggest source of employment and hard currency, American corporations had a huge effect on Chilean policy.
The fact that Nixon felt bold enough to demand that the Chilean Army depose Allende in 1970 before he took power is proof enough that the U.S. clearly viewed Chile as its neo-colony and fully expected it to march, lockstep with American policy and decisions.
It seems to me that a nation that "elected" a communist stooge could not possibly be under the control of the US.
I love it how you put elected in quotes as if he wasn’t actually elected. Nice try. How many elections did your boy Pinochet win? How much democracy was there in Chile during his reign? Mind tellin’ me?
No, you see, this is you foolishly misconstruing what I wrote. I never said, and in fact, never even insinuated, that American influence in Latin America began with the Cold War.
Your direct quote when I mentioned that the U.S. had intervened in Latin America 45 times in the 20th Century alone:
What happened throughout the 20th century was a proxy war between two competing powers, the US and the USSR.
Ultra OK
It clearly seemed you were stating that the interventions were the product of the Cold War. You either a.) need to learn how to write or b.) really though that your statement was true due to complete ignorance of Latin American history and now you’re trying to backtrack. I’ll go with b. Nice try though.
It was called Containment, which was primarily a product of George F. Kennan.
You’re just proving my point. I stated that U.S. policy never changed in Latin America even after the end of the Cold War. Only the NAME of that policy changed. That name is “containment” apparently.
You still haven’t answered my question. How did U.S. policy towards Latin America change with the Cold War? I want specific examples like the ones I give you. The United States deposed presidents it didn’t like before the Cold War…and it kept deposing them after the Cold War. The United States occupied countries for economic reasons before the Cold War…and it kept invading and occupying them for economic reasons after the Cold War. The United States trained and armed secret police before the Cold War started…and it kept arming and training secret police after the Cold War started.
How exactly did American policy change other than using words like “communism” and “containment” after 1945? I truly want to know.
Yes, because those countries asked for them you nimrod.
And Cuba asked for Soviet protection yet you seem to believe that while it’s perfectly legit for a country to ask the U.S. for protection against the Soviets…it’s not possible for the opposite to happen.
I think this is another symptom of that mental disease known as Conservatism: the inability to fathom that the United States could possibly be a danger to anyone on Earth.
This may have something to do with the fact that America never murdered 20 million of its own citizens and forced millions of others into slave labor, but hey, if you want to equate us with the USSR, go right ahead.
The United States was build on the corpses of millions of black slaves and expanded West on the corpses of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. Wanna tell me again how the U.S. achieved its economic power through Flower Power?
And to a Latin American farmer starving because of American policy it made no difference where his economic and political oppression came from. For the students who were tortured by secret police trained by the CIA the United States was just like the USSR. Oppressive is as oppressive does.
Which has no bearing on the fact that neither the US nor the USSR were overly concerned with them, seeing as how they were a defensive tactic; their existence in these states was to protect Europe and Asia, not to start a war.
Says you. You, of course, conveniently forget that the United States actually attacked the USSR first when it invaded the Soviet state in 1918 together with a gaggle of other European countries. You think the Soviets forgot that? Of course not.
Don’t mistake me though. I think the balls on the U.S. are impressive. To surround a country with nuclear weapons, constantly attack it through espionage, sabotage and propaganda and to claim that these are defensive actions takes cojones.
And I guess it’s sweet of you to say that Soviet citizens weren’t terrified of weapons which could incinerate their families 100 times over. Where do you get your Soviet ethnography? Rocky IV?
In case you forgot, the USSR had a history of invading European nations such as Finland and Hungary, and later on, Czechoslovakia.
Funny. Both Hungary and Czechoslovakia actually invaded the Soviet Union before the reverse happened. Hungary was part of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa in 1941 and it actively assisted in the killing and destruction of the Soviet Union. How many millions of Soviet citizens were killed by Hungarian forces? Excuse me if I don’t shed any tears when the chickens come home to roost.
And Czechoslovakia was actually one of the first countries to send soldiers and mercenaries into the Soviet Union in 1918. Action creates a reaction my friend.
Educate yourself. It would save you these embarrassments.
What objection do you have to the US helping to defend these countries against a possible Soviet invasion?
I could ask you the same thing: what objection do you have to the USSR helping Cuba defend itself against an American invasion?
Why would American corporations care about this? What would they have to gain?
Are you that stupid? Or just acting like one? American corporations have long opposed any kind of reformist or leftist government in Latin America because they like money. They like the unfettered access to cheap natural resources. They like the corrupt, right wing governments which look the other way whenever they pollute the environment. They love cheap labor they can exploit.
Since reformist and leftist government are directly opposed to those actions it would only make sense that American corporations would oppose their taking power. Since whenever Latin Americans have been given the choice they have overwhelmingly elected leftists and socialists at the ballot box it became necessary for American corporations to actively destroy and oppose democracy in Latin America.
United Fruit’s role in the destruction of Guatemalan democracy in 1954 is one of the most documented crimes in the history of the 20th Century. It would behoove you to study it.
Those pesky democracies eh?
It's no secret that by the 60s, the USSR was already collapsing due to their incompetence.
Actually the Soviet Union attained its highest level of growth in its GNP per capita during the 1960s.
SOURCE:
http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth How many times had the US invaded Cuba?
Five times as of 2010.
In 1898 following the Spanish American War, staying until 1901. It invaded Cuba again in 1906, 1912, 1917 and in 1933 to depose another Cuban president it didn’t agree with.
SOURCE:
http://www.zompist.com/latam.htmlIs it embarrassing being made to look like a moron again and again? You must tell me…
And again, Kennedy would never have invaded Cuba after what happened in 1961. Everyone in his cabinet was against the idea.
Yeah, that’s why there were almost constant plans of destabilization over the next 40 years. At last count, the U.S. had created 638 ways to murder Fidel Castro.
SOURCE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/03/cuba.duncancampbell2 And just because Kennedy didn’t want to invade Cuba it didn’t mean the next president wouldn’t.
Face it. Cubans had EVERY reason to believe American aggression against them would never stop. They had 100 years of history of aggression to learn from.
The only one who wanted an invasion was Curtis LeMay, and no one took him seriously.
Really? Is that why he was made Chief of Staff of the United States of Air Force from 1957 til 1965? Funny way to sidelining a lunatic. The truth is of course, is that MANY officials in the U.S. Government thought exactly like LeMay including of course, the head of the CIA and one of the most powerful man in the country, Allen Dulles.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that if it weren't for Khruschev, the US would have deposed Castro with a full-scale invasion. There is no evidence to back this up.
There are one hundred years of American intervention to back that claim up. Are you this blind? Before the Cuban Revolution the United States routinely invaded Latin American countries to depose presidents it did not like…and it did again after the Cuban Revolution. Grenada in 1983 is a great example. The only reason Cuba was spared was because of Soviet protection. That’s it.
The Cubans themselves knew their history. The United States had invaded Cuba FIVE times already in the 20th Century in order to change Cuban policy. Why wouldn’t they invade a sixth time?
You’re living in a dreamworld bro. Ride the Kick through the levels all the way up.
So I guess the direct quote from him, as well as the fact that he began his reign exactly as Stalin did- targeting the landowners, establishing Marxist revolutionary schools, censoring the media, and having people's land confiscted by the government- is not enough for you.
It’s not…because every single one of those statements is false. Sorry if I don’t believe false and misleading statements. I’m old fashioned that way. He may have praised Stalin but he never acted like Stalin. During his entire administration there were groups and organizations marching on the streets demanding his head on a platter. Opposition politicians openly called for a military coup.
And Allende killed them all…oh wait…no he didn’t. He ALLOWED THEM TO OPPOSE HIM PUBLICLY FOR THREE YEARS! Just like Stalin eh?
You must have some kind of psychological block. You praise the man who actually acted like Stalin, Pinochet, and you attack the man who didn’t. Pinochet, like Stalin, imprisoned the opposition. Pinochet, like Stalin, created a secret police force. Pinochet, like Stalin, tortured his opponents. Pinochet, like Stalin, banned any opposition party from running for elections.
Must I go on? Or will you keep denying the obvious? You probably will which is awesome. I want people in this board to see the dishonesty inherent in all fascists.
Hell Allende own's nephew was a leader of the MIR communist terrorist organization.
And Castro’s daughter has an anti-Castro talk show in Miami and Hitler’s nephews served in the U.S. Navy in World War II. What exactly is your point Captain Brainless?
Allende had nothing to do with MIR, an organization which actually believed Allende was too tame for their own tastes. And it’s funny that you should call them “terrorists” since they never actually engaged in violent actions in Chile UNTIL Chilean democracy was destroyed by Pinochet. Unlike say, Patria y Libertad, the right wing militia which DID attack the Chilean Congress in June of 1973.
Notice you don’t call them terrorists? Typical right-wing doublespeak. When they oppose “us” and “our” allies, THEN and only then they are terrorists.
LOL! Well what the hell do you think "promoting communism" entailed? Radio messages and a few propaganda films?
It entailed exactly what I stated it entailed. Strengthening Communist Parties worldwide through moral and monetary support. You act as if Ponomareve was this shady puppet master operating secretly in the basements of the Kremlin and Santiago when he was in fact a publicly known high official of the USSR. Why shouldn’t he meet with a fellow Marxist? Do you see conspiracy afoot when U.S. Secretaries of State meet with heads of state allied to the United States.
And if you could quote me were I said that all 30,000 were Soviets - as opposed to Soviet, Cuban, or other- that would be greatly appreciated.
Don’t try to be cute. Your clearly implied it. You stated several times that the USSR was financing training camps all over Chile and that communists in Chile were planning to turn Chile into a “soviet puppet state”.
What else then would I conclude when you state there were 30,000 Communist agents in Chile? Where else would they have come from BUT the Soviet Union and countries allied to it?
Please enlighten me. I can’t decipher your idiotic, unsourced, unfounded statements. You’re gonna have to be more clear with your fantasies.
The Nazis had the same objective, only they actually succeeded in transforming Germany into a military, economic, and industrial superpower.
And what exactly does that have to do with anything? Great sidestep by the way. You do that a lot. Say an asinine thing, get called on it and then quickly ignore the fact that you were made to look like a horse’s ass and completely shift the argument.
Whether or not Nazi Germany became a superpower (it didn’t) is irrelevant. I correctly stated that “changing their country” is exactly what Communists want to do. And as a response you typed that ridiculous non-sequitur. It’s like talking to a mental patient.
Really? I guess that's why Pinochet gave rise to what is widely known as 'Chile's Economic Miracle?'
The only people who believe that are right-wing economists and ignorant people. You haven’t claimed to have a Ph.D in economics (yet) so I guess you’re part of the latter group. Most historians agree that Pinochet’s rule was an economic disaster to Chile. In fact, it is used as an example of what really happens to a country when right-wing economic policies are enacted with zero governmental oversight.
Maybe you need to see the stats you so conveniently ignored:
Under Pinochet’s wise rule the percentage of households living below the poverty and indigence lines skyrocketed.
In 1970, before Pinochet took power, 17% of Chilean household incomes were below the poverty line; by 1990, the rate had doubled, with 35% of the households living in poverty. SOURCE:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/08/mm0894_12.html In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile's unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.
After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983,
GDP dropped 19%. SOURCE:
http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-mira cle-of-chile-2/
Tell me again how good Pinochet was to Chile. Tell me about this “miracle” which reduced millions of Chileans to misery.
In 2006 Chile was back under socialist rule under Bachelet. Thanks for proving my point.
What a ridiculous accusation. So a President takes power and IMMEDIATELY plunges her country into poverty! Literally weeks after! Priceless.
CONTINUED...
reply
share
devirginizer83-1
14 years ago
Still, they are better off now than they would have been without Pinochet;
Sure they are. Thanks for your dumbass opinion. Here’s some FACTS: Socialism saved Chile. Cover your ears children. To save the nation's pension system after Pinochet’s Chicago Boys mismanaged the Chilean economy into bankruptcy in 1982-1983, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Socialist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation.
SOURCE:
http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-mira cle-of-chile-2/
And of course, Pinochet eventually did what he deposed Allende for in 1973 he nationalized the copper industry which gave the Chilean economy MILLIONS of dollars in the 1980s. That hard currency helped the Chilean economy well into the 1990s.
Oh the irony…it wasn’t Hayek or Milton Friedman or Pinochet who saved Chile…but dull old socialistic Keynesian economics.
Uh, no, the leaders of the biggest revolt against the Bolsheviks throughout the entire course of the war were Anton Denikin, Lavr Kornilov, and Pyotr Wrangel, who commaned the anti-Bolshevik White Armies from 1917 through 1923. But hey, you're a socialist, so I'm used to you guys twisting history in your favor.
I gotta twist history BACK after you hopelessly mangle it. One, NONE of the above men led anything against the Soviets after 1920 when the last of the White Armies surrendered to the Red Army. Kornilov died in 1918. Kinda hard for him to be leading armies against the Reds in 1923. I have no idea where you get your dates from…probably from where you get most of your stats: your ass.
And the two, the White Armies weren’t a rebellion. They were part of a Civil War. You clearly knew what I wanted to say. You just didn’t want to admit it. The Tambov Rebellion was the largest rebellion against the USSR once it was established following the Civil War.
And it was led by Socialists who profoundly disagreed with the policies of the Bolshevik Government. Deal with it.
I already gave you the names of Soviet KGB agents operating in Chile at the time, as well Allende's meetings with Ponomarev, as well as Allende's own bubbly speech about the great Stalin. What more do you want?
I want evidence of these “terrorist training camps” and the massacres the people trained in them committed. Back up your outlandish claim. You got me curious…and laughing.
WTF? All throughout the 50s and 60s Britain's MI6 was intercepting Soviet shipments of weapons and goods to revolutionaries in Latin America.
Evidence? Any? Would love some. I stand by my statement and quite frankly I wouldn’t have to defend it if you had even the slightest familiarity with Soviet history. The USSR repudiated armed revolution in the 1950s. It routinely accused Latin American Marxist groups of “Maoist deviation”. In fact, upon Che Guevara’s death, instead of hailing him as the hero that he was the Soviet Union cravenly published a article in Pravda holding him up as an example of why “Maoism” in Latin America was futile.
Martinez Platero, a leader of Uruguay’s Tupamaros, went to Cuba in 1973 to ask for weapons, training and support against dictatorships. Castro bluntly told him that armed revolution was not the way for his country and both him and Moscow opposed it.
SOURCE: Dinges, John. The Condor Years: How Pinochet and his Allies Brought Terror to Three Continents. The New Press, 2004. p.56-57.
Where on Earth do you think they got their weapons from, you think they had factories producing them in their home countries?
Actually yes…we Latin Americans can do more than work on your factories and pick your tomatoes. MIR built a fully functioning factory in 1974 which built copies of the Karl Gustav, a Swedish submachine gun. Does it surprise you that we’re not the inferior apes you thought we were?
SOURCE: Dinges, p. 54.
Ugh. There were 30,000 agents and revolutionaries in Chile, Pinochet killed about 3,000 of them. The rest he either imprisoned or let go and allowed to return to Cuba and East Germany.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Now how about some sources? Some evidence that in fact those 3,000 killed were “communist agents”. Would love some.
I of course, have ACTUAL evidence that most victims of Pinochet’s rule were leftist civilians. After years of investigations, Chile’s democratic government published the Rettig Report in which they list 3, 428 victims of Pinochet.
Here’s a copy of the report:
http://www.usip.org/files/resources/collections/truth_commissions/Chil e90-Report/Chile90-Report.pdf
Here’s a memorial to the victims, with detailed information on many of them.
http://www.memoriaviva.com/ Find me some Communist agents. Please.
People like you make me sick. Love making you look like an idiot though.
And again, power struggles are inevitable when we're dealing with totalitarian regimes.
Is there a name for the disease you have? This kind of denial has to be pathological. Those were not “power struggles”. They were examples of the fundamental difference and conflict between Socialists and Communists. We are not all the same.
Communists believe in a vanguard party, a one party state, democratic centralism and a centralized, planned economy. Socialists believe in none of that. We are democrats.
Marx himself stated in his
The Civil War in France that the ideal socialist society would be the one created by the Paris Commune in 1871. Read up on it. Then see how it compares to the monolith that was the Soviet Union. Then shut up about all Marxists being the same.
Socialism didn't save anything. If you new anything about FDR and the history of the depression you'd realize that FDR's initial socialistic reforms were disastrous, and in fact, led to the highest inflation and unemployment under his administration.
You know who disagrees with you? Intelligent people who know what they are talking about.
In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to economists and historians in more than a dozen American universities. They were asked whether or not the New Deal worsened or curtailed the Great Depression.
Overwhelmingly, historians and economists stated that New Deal legislation, imperfect as they were, helped the nation get back on its feet, assisted MILLIONS of Americans have better lives and prevented the U.S. into falling into an even greater hole.
Seventy-three percent of economists and 94% of historians agreed that the New Deal made things better not worse. You know who agrees with you? Sean Hannity. Be proud.
SOURCE:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2123771 Yes, we all agree socialism thrives in hellholes.
Of course. People in hellholes know exactly who put them there. They look to the people who actually wanna help them instead of enslaving them.
Right, and how many elections have they won since 1989?
The Hungarian Socialist Party, which ruled Hungary from 1956 to 1989 still exists and in the 2006 elections won 43.2% of votes in the general election, placing 190 representatives out of 390 in the Hungarian Parliament. The Bulgarian Socialist Party, which also ruled the country til 1989 won the national elections in 1995. It also won national elections in 2005. The current president of Bulgaria is Georgy Parvanov, a self-described Socialist and a former member.
The Social Democratic Party of Croatia, also heirs to the Marxist party that ruled the country for 40 plus years, has also won national elections in Croatia many times.
And there are more examples? Need I go on? Even those countries which suffered under Communism for more than forty years routinely and frequently elect Socialists to power.
Yes, because despite the fact that almost none of those films you listed were major productions to begin with, none of those films give any insight into the true extent of mass killings.
DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965) is the 8th highest grossing film of all time adjusted for inflation, it was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won five. STALIN (1992) was a huge success for HBO and won three Golden Globe Awards. THE KILLING FIELDS (1984) was nominated for seven Academy Awards.
Yep…very obscure films they were. Any more wildly incorrect statements you wanna fling at your screen?
Yes, and the film actually blames the brutality of the communists on the US, which is typical of Stone and his ilk.
Awesome. Your statement clearly shows you’ve never watched a minute of the film. It does nothing of the sort by the way. She’s raped by Viet Cong guerillas and her village is depicted being brutalized by Communist forces. Try again buddy.
reply
share
LWagada
14 years ago
OWNED!
reply
share
rapemyskull
14 years ago
nice.
considering latin america countries, what would american corporations care what happened to them.......
really?
thats rich, and unfortunately, it seems to be the pervasive viewpoint of many americans that are falling for the multi billions that are being injected into psychological conditioning BY the same corporations that would like you to believe they have no interest in expanding their blight.
great dialectic on behalf of devirginizer. kudos for correcting the nitwit.
reply
share
liutenantsalt
8 years ago
Please elaborate, you totalitarian halfwit, what's the motivation for your beloved socialist dictators to "care" about the people they're enslaving and murdeting?
reply
share
olompali4
14 years ago
Simply a brilliant devastation, devirginizer83-1.
Apparently your antagonist is now pulling a Sarah Palin.
Plug ears, run and hide from the better informed and historically accurate.
If the right wing would simply admit that their global power grab is simply to get fatter and richer and leave the false freedom seeking patriotism rhetoric behind, then perhaps all of humanity would finally fathom their insane pathology
and denounce it fully and completely.
reply
share
liutenantsalt
8 years ago
It seems like, whenever you totalitarian pigs can't defend the genocide, oppression and totalitarianism of your beloved dictatorships, you start whining about Sarah Palin or some other unrelated scapegoat.
Well, I guess you're called Useful Idiots for a reason.
reply
share
liutenantsalt
8 years ago
Anybody as pathological in their dishonesty and psychopathic in their love of totalitarianism and genocide as you clearly are, Virgin, ought to be rewarded with an extra chocolate ration.
reply
share
rwood-10
13 years ago
Ok, regarding Chile:
According to the Mitrokhin Archives, Allende had extensive contacts with the KGB, and just as the CIA was trying to destabilize his regime, the KGB was trying to prop it up. The KGB was growing dissatisfied with Allende, as he wasn't a dictator like they wanted. It is likely that CUBAN OPERATIVES, not Pinochet's soldiers, killed Allende to create a martyr.
Also, who was responsible for the fall of Pinochet? REAGAN, BUSH, and the National Endowment for Democracy in assisting the anti-Pinochet plebiscite. The Reagan and Bush presidencies were also instrumental in cutting aid to Paraguay, hastening the fall of Stroessner. The invasions of Grenada and Panama saved their countries from brutal dictators.
Devirginizer, you are devirginized.
reply
share
liutenantsalt
8 years ago
GEE, VIRGIN.
Why is it you never want to discuss the fat greater amount of socialist intervention in South America? Why don't you ever want to acknowledge the democracies toppled by the Castro dictatorship, who was in turn working as Stalin's puppet? Why don't you ever want to talk about the genocide and conquest caused by the illegitimate Sandinista regime?
Why can't you ever argue in historical fact, instead of lying out your ass?
reply
share