Why didn't they strongarm Latin American dictatorships into becoming stable democracies?

Why didn't they strongarm Latin American dictatorships into becoming stable democracies?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what are smoking?
    the last thing the US needs is for latin america to be stable and have capacity to deal and make alliances with other nations
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So why did the US support Caudillos and anti-democratic Dictators in there and let them turn their countries into a shithole instead of actually policing their conduct and coercing them into becoming liberal stable democracies?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        "democracy" is communism, which is a dictatorship in of itself and is even less stable than a traditional dictatorship

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nice "argument" moron.
          Now why don't you actually make a cohesive answer that's not copied off /misc/ or whatever right wing discord circlejerk you came from.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Spics are low IQ and wouldn't understand western civilization if they were living it it. Go ahead and name a single intellectual movement in any of these countries that looks remotely like liberalism and isn't blood red communism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >generic /misc/ answer
            I accept your concession.
            Frick off and go back to your circlejerk.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Name a SINGLE intellectual movement. Come on moron, just ONE you fricking monkey

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even answer my question
            >resorts to moving the goalpost and redirecting the argument to somewhere non-related
            Like I said. I accept your concession. You can frick off now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there wasn't a single political/intellectual movement in latin america in the 20th century that wasn't marxist based
            >duh why latin america a shithole? it was duh americans!
            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
            stupid people stupid prizes, let me guess, you don't even understand basic economics?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your further concessions.I don't care if you come from some bumfrick region in Eastern Europe or a self-hating Latino.
            If you can't even answer my question ( or even your own question ), just do us all a favor and jump down from a building you non-original /misc/crement.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a history board you actual dysgenic, cope

            name something historical or suck my nuts

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't even answer my question despite being on a history board LOL.
            Just have a nice day moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >REEEEEEEEE WHY DID AMERICA SUPPORT DICTATERS
            because "people" like you are moronic, which is also why you can't answer any of my questions, you don't even know your own history, that's how stupid you are

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Liberalism by itself was invented by Spanish jesuits in Salamanca according to Hayek himself:
            https://mises.org/mises-wire/hayek-school-salamanca
            Get fricked, poltard/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >liberalism was invented by the spanish
            >post has nothing to do with liberalism
            typical Hispanic intelligence

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Go ahead and name a single intellectual movement in any of these countries that looks remotely like liberalism
            Black person
            >Go ahead and name a single intellectual movement in any of these countries that looks remotely like liberalism
            moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Brownie uh... austrian economics isn't "liberalism", and the shit you posted has almost nothing to do with austrian economics anyway.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The basic principles of the theory of the competitive market were worked out by the Spanish scholastics of the 16th century and that economic liberalism was not designed by the Calvinists but by the Spanish Jesuits! —F.A. Hayek, 1979
            This is a fact.
            You can now cry about it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you ask the same question twice

        what are smoking?
        the last thing the US needs is for latin america to be stable and have capacity to deal and make alliances with other nations
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Americans destabilize Latin American nation
          >Cry and whine when economic migrants from the nation they destabilize flood their doorsteps
          Why. What even?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >believing American canned lines about "democracy" and "freedom"
        It's realpolitik meant to keep browns under the American thumb, nothing more.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The gringo fears the Latino BVLL hence why he needs to keep the region unstable and underdeveloped

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did
    Carter put economic and military sanctions on all regimes.
    Pinochet was pressured by Reagan to call for elections and leave

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But how effective were their measures in actually changing the nations he put pressure on? And did Carter get flak for changing his stance on Latin America?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because the perception was that the Alliance for Progress was a failure, shortly after taking office, on February 17, 1969, President Richard Nixon commissioned a study to assess the state of Latin America. Nixon appointed his most powerful political rival, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller to direct the study. The poor relationship between the two politicians suggested that Nixon would not be that interested in the results of the study. There was a lack of interest for the region in the late 1960s to early 1970s.[13]

        In early 1969, Rockefeller and his advisors took four trips to Latin America. Most of the trips turned out to be an embarrassment. Rockefeller wrote in his report preface that,

        There is general frustration over the failure to achieve a more rapid improvement in standards of living. The United States, because of its identification with the failure of the Alliance for Progress to live up to expectations, is blamed. People in the countries concerned also used our visit as an opportunity to demonstrate their frustrations with the failure of their own governments to meet their needs...demonstrations that began over grievances were taken over and exacerbated by anti-US and subversive elements which sought to weaken the United States, and their own governments in the process.[13]
        A major part of the Rockefeller report suggested a reduction of U.S. involvement, "we, in the United States, cannot determine the internal political structure of any other nation". Because there was little the United States should or could do toward changing the political atmosphere in other countries, there was no reason to attempt to use economic aid as a political tool. This was the justification to reduce economic aid in Latin America. The Rockefeller report called for some aid to continue, but the report recommended creating more effective aid programs.[13]

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Latin America experienced explosive population growth in the middle of the 20th century as two demographic trends converged: high birth rates and rapidly declining death rates. With annual growth reaching 2.8 percent in the 1960s, Latin America’s population was growing faster than that of any other world region except Africa. This unprecedented pace of growth slowed after 1970 as fertility fell with surprising speed, but the number of people added to the population each year continued to expand, and the region’s population tripled between 1950 and 2000.

          The region’s population was being transformed from being overwhelmingly rural to predominantly urban. As the urban population grew by 4.5 percent per year, it taxed public services and created an expanding need for education and jobs.

          Africa tier population growth

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The pressure worked. All south american dictators were gone by the late 80s and there were free elections, won by centrist parties mostly.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because commies are very envious people and need their buttbuddies in the kgb

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why would hispanix want to be developed, that's boring gringo shit, like paying your taxes on time or not having a cousin associated with a local druglord

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because white man is keeping latinx race down

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *