5 ms·
You must have never heard of a thing called an 'NGO' or the 'CIA'. Even when, on the surface (i.e: what CNN says), the US is not pursuing it's interests globall
by ushegemony 9y ago
You must have never heard of a thing called an 'NGO' or the 'CIA'. Even when, on the surface (i.e: what CNN says), the US is not pursuing it's interests globally, you can be pretty sure that it has its finger in the pie somewhere.
heres an example of some of the US's 'assistance' to voices that they want heard. http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2010/240-241/media2.htm
I'm definitely not pro-socialist or anti-capitalist, those are just overused labels which only further muddy any discourse on the issue's which matter. Given the US's history in South and Latin America though (and to be honest, world-wide), I definitely don't see them as some beacon of freedom and democracy.
sidenote, same shit happened in Brazil, Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? An equally corrupt, more Washington leaning politician (we don't see the media jumping up and down as much for this one though). Dilma was looking to strengthen BRICS and that obviously couldn't go on.
(all politicians in Brazil are corrupt, thats the only reason you become a politician in brazil, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on)
[1]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/730909086775152641
- ymgch 9y agodiLma was looking to strengthen the Communism above all. I don't like Temer at all, but, diLma as president, braziL could be in much worse path. Hope both of this corruPTs (among others) be in jail soon.
- geezerjay 9y ago> Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement? Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who has been continuously cooking Brazil's books to try to hide away a chronic economic crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who tried to nominate her fellow Worker's Party colleague Lula da Silva into her cabinet just to grant him immunity from being prosecuted for corruption? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI1T0 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI... I'm sure she was only hoisted by Brazil's own elected representatives because of bad publicity. I mean, it's not that she did anything wrong or anything.
- tnzn 9y agoDid you even read his fucking comment or do you just cherry pick phrases and build a strawman from that ?
- ushegemony 9y agoymgch, geezerjay I 110% agree with you both, like I said, all politicians in Brasil are corrupt, and I'm not making excuses for any of them, I was illustrating US meddling, which is always sold as 'getting rid of bad people', when in fact its really just 'replace their corrupt people, with our corrupt people', The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. geezerjay you don't have to link me articles about her being corrupt, I'm a Brasilian national so I'm well informed of the situation.
- geezerjay 9y ago> The US has been trying to get rid of Dilma (and Lula prior to her) for years. It seems to me that you're conflating the natural consequences of the problems these politicians create to themselves with an assumption that it would be convenient for third-party to get rid of them. Regarding Dilma and Lula, they are very corrupt individuals who rose through the ranks of a very corrupt political party, and the judicial branch happened to catch them. Consequently, their political power and ability to avoid being held accountable for their crimes reached its limit. Just because Lula was sentenced to 10 years in prison it doesn't mean that the US is responsible for him taking bribes.