That the U.S. supposedly was involved in the rising of a military dictatorship in Chile, and perhaps in a few other Latin American countries as well (pressumably considering the dictatorships a lesser evil, as compared to communism). (Try doing a search on "Plan Condor" - this will give you some interesting information.)
I do not dispute this. The U.S. too often sends in 'guidance' forces that train and supply rebels and groups that are trying to overthrow a government or dictator that is in conflict with U.S. goals and interests. I have participated in this myself during my time in the military and as a citizen, I disagree with this practice 100%.
What I find interesting is that this very thing is recommended as a better course of action for Iraq.
>
Specifically in Bolivia, the war against the Ancient and Holy Leaf (1), which has already caused lots of unrest, and several deaths. The Bolivian government wages a war against the Leaf, and receives money from the U.S. in exchange.
The only problem I have with this is that Bolivia could turn down the money and not accept any 'help' from the U.S. Are we the bad guys for offering our support or is the Bolivian government the 'bad' guys for accepting? I would prefer we don't provide aid to other countries myself so give the money back. I understand that this is supposedly help fight the war on drugs in the U.S. by diminishing the supply, but it is not working and the money spent could be better used at home.
>
It is also said that in several other government policies, our government is "submissive" to the U.S., and does about anything the U.S. asks of Bolivia.
Once again, that is the responsibility of the Bolivian government, not the U.S.
>
There was quite a scandal when the U.S. ambassador recommended not to vote for a certain candidate (2). Of course, I am aware that the ambassador may have acted on his own, without this being the official U.S. policy. I am almost certain that more people voted for this candidate, due to this foreign interference. Another political party even made the claim (absurd, IMO) that this was the intention!
This is the most ridiculous so far. The Ambassador should no longer be in a public office of any type. It's humourous that it backfired though! While those that hold public office are said to be 'representatives of the U.S.' they are in fact, all individuals with individual faults. The wrong appointment was made in this case and should be rectified.
> > >Notes: > >(1) Erythroxylon Coca >(2) For Evo Morales, who represents the interest of the coca growers.
.·*´¨) .·`TCH (..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100 "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.) "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown "De omnibus dubitandum"
