[Potemkin]

Unconditional love will stand tall and feverish hate shall fall short. A warm heart worn on the sleeve will melt a cold shoulder. Tough love is the language of Nature. A potter's firm and steady hand shapes soft clay, whilst day divides the night.

Strike a balance,

-RT

[Drlee]

I am taking the liberty of doing two in a row because I want to separate this from my (perhaps gullible) reply. I am sure the mods will understand.

The astounding part of is that Drlee was there even while it was happening, and seems to have noticed nothing. Drlee genuinely seems to care about people and seems to have genuinely made an effort to help people throughout his life, but seems to have understood nothing he saw and experienced. It's actually a tragedy.

OK. It is time for me to take you and Skinster back to the 60's. Perhaps I can give you an idea of why so many dodgy things happened seemingly under the noses of the American people. Mine in particular.

I grew up in a typical 50-60's household in a mid sized city. How could all of this stuff happen without our knowing?

You are used to living in a world where the sharing of ideas with a large number of people is as easy as clicking a mouse. We did not.

My city had two newspapers. One mostly republican and one mostly democrat. They were one of two sources of daily news. They got their international news from the same sources as did most papers and magazines. They bought it from the wire services. AP or UPI. They sorted through it, filtered it for their audience and published it in the daily. Since the paper also covered local news, almost all advertising including help wanted and personal car sales, the space was limited. So was my attention span. I was going to school, working, training, etc. There was also, in the 60's a major war going on which sucked up a ton of space. There were the shots to the moon, local and national politics, science, medicine, you name it. All vying for my eyeballs for a few seconds. Why? To sell that advertising.

But we had television. Yes. Three commercial channels each with about 1/2 hour of news per day. All three scheduled at the same time. That 1/2 hour was supposed to cover the "other" news. Not much was going on. Just that we were in a major war, a major civil rights movement, a scientific explosion, a cold war with a major international power and from the mid 60s on a domestic cultural revolution that sent people reeling everyday. It was not just Woodstock you know. All of this alongside the usual births and deaths, ecological and economic disasters, train wrecks and human interest stories. All of that divided onto 150 minutes of evening national news from three sources, and a couple of weekend shows if one did not have anything going on on Sunday morning and evening. And most of us did.

But the magazines! Yes. We got US News and World Report and Time as I recall. These came once a month. Once a month. They were supposed to cover everything that happened for a month. Of course we could go to the library and read magazines. The ones from last month but unless one was not working, playing, and in general just living this did not happen. Question. How much news would YOU two read if we took away your computer and shut off your cable TV?

We could get a taste of international news IF we owned a short wave radio. We could get Radio Moscow, the BBC World Service and even Radio Havana but it was truly a joke. (Even in Spanish.) But who does that?





There there is this. It may come as a surprise to you but the CIA did not publish a news letter.

Yes I was in Guatemala during Montenegro's time. He was a civilian for a change. The US was training the Guatemalan Army then. I was running a vaccination and first aid clinic in a rural mountain city of 11,000. I knew that there were FAR guerillas in the mountains and occasionally one would come to my clinic. (A couple of times I spotted the pistols under their shirts.) I was guarded by a few Policia National when I traveled in the area to take vaccines to the outlying areas. Two were at my door when the clinic was open. What did I know if them? I knew they were Marxists supported by the Soviet Union. I knew they had killed a couple of US advisors and the US ambassador the year before and that was why I had armed guards.

Tell me you two. If I had even wanted to get 'objective' information about the FAR and other movements in Guatemala, where would I have gotten it? Not just in general but ESPECIALLY when I was there? Should I have taken my medical Spanish and walked into the boonies alone on the outside chance that one of them wanted to have a chat? That would not have worked out well at all. Besides. At that time there was something every Russian and every American knew. If something was supported by the other side it was bad. The CIA was sure not briefing me and frankly I was in my late 20's before I even met anyone who worked for the CIA. They were not and still aren't chatty Kathy.

I will tell you this. When I was about 12, I developed an interest in the Soviet Union. I read all of the stuff at my JHS library but it was not, to say the least, favorable. So without telling my parents I wrote a letter to the Soviet Mission at the United Nations asking for stuff about Russia. They gave me a subscription to
Soviet Life, a propaganda magazine they published every month as I recall. It kept coming for about 4 months and then stopped for no apparent reason. I was sure a cool kid when I showed them around. So at the tender age of 12 I read Marx and some others and drove my parents crazy with zippy quotes. That is what 12 year olds do.

The 50's and 60's were the time of tail gunner Joe and the John Birch Society. Remember the Hollywood black list? I do. Remember the House Un-American Activities Committee? I do. My first political campaign (I was young but worked on it) was for Barry Goldwater. He was a militant anti-communist. I lived in Tucson which was ringed by Titan Missile silos. (We still have a slew of missile silos on alert every day but we have forgotten about them.) Even they guy who beat Goldwater, Johnson, was a strong anti-communist. And in the light of all of this, you guys want to know why, amid disease, a child mortality rate of 60% and a two person clinic, without electricity or a real doctor, I did not study the politics of Guatemala? Get real.

So you both personally attacked me for not know what was virtually unknowable to an everyday person until a very few years ago. Skinster posted a list of horrible s, each of which would take a great deal of time, even today, to truly understand. Even with the wonderful information we have at our fingertips, we still have to sort through a massive amount of information, understand it as best we can, and come to a personal conclusion about its truth and in the end, importance to what is happening today.

This is the danger of people today looking back into history. It has become almost impossible for people to understand life before the information explosion. John Adams, as McCullough points out, "lived in a five mile per hour world". But, but but, there were abolitionists writing about the evils of slavery! How could they not know? They knew. But that pamphlet took weeks to get from New York to Atlanta and then what happened to it? How many people read it? So you had an idea, decided how to vote (once that became a thing) and you went back to your 6 1/2 day work week.

Today the CIA, the SVR RF, MI5, and the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité are all doing secret shit. They are not telling us. We get a glimpse under the veil sometimes when some hacker gets through the fire walls or someone whispers in a journalist's ear but we really don't know much of what is going on. But this is certainly true. We know (or at least could know) vastly more today than could even have been imagined until quite recently. When I was your age this kind of access and its ramifications literally could never have even been imagined except in some Olympian laboratory or Science Fiction. The total computing and information handling capability with which we went to the moon was nothing in comparison to a modern disposable cell phone.

So you guys live in a world where just about everything appears to be knowable. When it comes to history you can know a great deal because.......(Stalin was 5'4" tall. I just looked it up in less time than took to just tell you)....you have instant access to information that has never in history existed. Forgetting that and its importance you beat the shit out of the rest of us because of something that simply did not exist in our world. You are not better scholars for it. Worse in fact. You know about the past but you do not understand it at a human level.

What was important for me in the mountains of Guatemala in 1969-70? Children were dying all around me and there was fuck-all I could do about it. I had my finger in the dam so to speak. I was tired, had amoebic dysentery, little food, insufficient training and supplies, a precarious position in the society of my town and a 16 year old assistant from Houston who did not speak Spanish. And you are astonished that I did not know about the FAR or some fruit company that my country was trying to hide from me? Do try to get real. There's a good chap.

(The pic looks like my graduating class.)

[B0ycey]

You mean the same Red Army which saved the world - including the USA - from Nazism? That Red Army?

Do you believe this? You need to dust off your history books you have much reading to learn. Russia might have reached Berlin first but America wasn't at war against the Nazis until 1941 and they weren't attacked on their soil by them either (or in danger of it). If it wasnt for them entering the war Hitler wouldn't have been forced to defend the Western side at the expense of the Eastern flank and Russia would have just stayed put.

Fun Fact (or perhaps not): The difference between Hitler and Stalin was one killed their dissenting population by sending them to a concentration camps and the other did likewise in Gulags. Both regimes were based on the needs of the state over that of the individual (Fascists). So according to you Stalin saved us from fascism with fascism. How ironic.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I honestly doubt that the USA has saved more lives in Central America than it has killed, or somehow aided in the killing of by supporting the dictatorship or paramilitary group.

I note the restriction to only Central America of a more general claim made earlier by Drlee. But regardless, let's start with 2.4 million under 5 year olds that the US either saved or somehow aided in saving since 1970 in Central America via a reduction in child mortality. The same number is 8 million since 1990 in Latin America. Numbers from here.

The political instability is one of the causes of violence, and the USA is predominantly responsibke for that, insofar as they supported all the dictatorships that caused the instability.

The US is also responsible for the violence surrounding the drug trade, since they are by far the main consumers of said drugs.
If you want to include demand for goods as a causal factor, then the picture will be even more skewed in the US's favour.

In fact, most of the weapons used by both sides in the ongoing “war on drugs” come from the USA.

There are economic reasons as well. And the US, with its CAFTA-DR deal, has been flooding the central American markets wih its exports, causing economic instability.

To be honest, I cannot think of a single cause for migration for which the USAis not significantly responsible.

I agree that the US needs to take some responsibility for the political instability, but it is not predominantly responsible. These were proxy wars by two sides after all and the countries themselves also have some responsibility.

I cannot take the rest of the above seriously because it expects the US to be a paternalistic and entirely benevolent entity which always acts with the best interest of its Central American children in mind. There are plenty of countries in the vicinity of rich countries with drug consuming people that don't descend into violence brought about in part by drug cartels. The same goes for your point on economic relations, as far as that's valid at all. There are plenty of countries in similar situations without instability and violence.

That’s easy. They just traveled 4000km with whatever they could carry on their bodies, with children. If that is not evidence for desperation of a less fortunate person I don’t know what is. That is unless you are suggesting that they left their beautiful lives behind with their gorgeous haciendas and safe schools to walk/drive 4000km just to fun.k off with trump’s hair?

They are certainly less fortunate and so are billions of other people around the world. However, you said least fortunate and that's clearly not the case. For one, the vast majority will be able bodied and healthy and in their prime rather than much less fortunate frail and ill people who wouldn't be able to make that journey.

They may well be desperate to improve their economic circumstances but again so are billions around the world. Are you arguing that this is enough to let people come to the US?

If they are desperate in a meaningful sense, e.g. trying to get away from a credible threat to their safety, then they would surely have taken up Mexico's offer rather than declined it and making their way to the US.

[Pants-of-dog]

I note the restriction to only Central America of a more general claim made earlier by Drlee. But regardless, let's start with 2.4 million under 5 year olds that the US either saved or somehow aided in saving since 1970 in Central America via a reduction in child mortality. The same number is 8 million since 1990 in Latin America. Numbers from here.

Your link takes me to a page wi5 no numbers but instead has links to other pages.

Also, the UN is not the USA.

I agree that the US needs to take some responsibility for the instability, but it is not predominantly responsible. These were proxy wars by two sides after all and the countries themselves also have some responsibility.

I cannot take the rest of the above seriously because it expects the US to be a paternalistic and entirely benevolent entity which always acts with the best interest of its Central American children in mind. There are plenty of countries in the vicinity of rich countries with drug consuming people that don't descend into violence brought about in part by drug cartels. The same goes for your point on economic relations, as far as that's valid at all. There are plenty of countries in similar situations without instability and violence.

Please cite a single reason for migration for which the US is not predominantly responsible.

I have shown how they are responsible for drug violence, paramilitary violence, dictatorships, political instability, and economic downturns.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Well you are right they are responsible for some of the shit going on there but from the rational point of view they shouldnt take any responsibility
its not like anyone is forcing them to do that

[XogGyux]

I bolded your own hypocrisy. You go on a tirade about stereotyping immigrants, then you not only stereotype them yourself but stereotype everyone wanting stronger borders as ‘hate filled’.

Actually no. First, stereotyping is not a bad thing. We all do it, it is perfectly normal and useful. It helps us communicate and save brainpower to use in other cognitive processes. Furthermore, it is essential for language as we know it. Assuming that a particular stereotype is somehow demeaning and makes the person inferior, is actually what is problematic and it is what differentiate us in this discussion. I might be saying that the typical (average, if you will) refugee is probably not very highly educated, speaks only Spanish and is likely to be doing menial, entry-level jobs in some kind of farm or some kind of low-skill service is not, in any way, shape, or form decreasing their value to society as a human being. You are the one going 1 step further and assuming such inferiority. Hypocrisy, check and mate.

BTW, I have no problem with shooting those trying to enter illegally. Why would it not be part of our national security? Defending your borders without weapons isn’t much of a defense.

Well, I think this discussion is approaching the end very quickly because I don't really see a way I can meaningfully change the mind and teach morals to a grown man/woman over the internet on a few forum posts. I don't think it is likely, or perhaps even possible.

My strongest argument relies on and the worth of human being and compassion/empathy/morals and I don't have the time, nor the skills to teach you any of that, its a pity. My weaker yet still important argument is to consider the utilitarian value of what you are proposing. Best case scenario, by commiting what is essentially genocide, you can prevent a sizable portion (but again, not all, as I told you before, their lives are so fking screwed up that they might as well take the risk of getting shot the same way a cuban rafter takes the risk of being drawn) and perhaps you could indirectly raise the salary of a burger flipper by about 5%-10% which now instead of being $9/h is $9.50-$10, big fk.ing deal (and that is assuming that you are just considering the studies that supports a small decrease in low skill wages, as we saw studies actually point towards wage-neutral with overall good impact in the economy, but lets assume that you are right and it has a 10% change in wages just for the sake of argument) and you prevent your neightboor from having a spanish speaking contractor...

On the other hand, you have countless of families of these immigrants hating every single one of US. Some of these very well will attack, mistreat and possibly even kill our tourists going into their countries or even worse, could grow up so full in hatred that could become the next wave of silent terrorists to come haunt us. That is not to mention, the HUGE impact that killing people at the border could have with our military. They already suffer PTSD and depression or even full blown psychopathic behavior from all the shit that goes in war zones and you are proposing that the government gives them orders to kill families with kids that do not carry weapons or pose a real imminent danger to society. Well f.king done, the medical bills or even the tiniest percentage of soldiers suffering from PTSD will DWARF any tiny impact on the economy that immigrants will have.

Also, Personally I don't think you meant it for real. You are proposing the equivalent of killing a family of scared people that broke into a grocery store in the middle of a hurricane/flood looking for shelter and food and you want to shoot them on the face for doing so.

Your opinions on who these immigrants are has no basis except your imagination and propaganda. You have no idea who they are.

I am not the one pre-judging them. If I recall correctly I am not the orange moron that called all mexicans rapists and murderer. I rest my case.

I do not believe that economic migrants, such as most of them in the caravan, should be allowed in the country. I believe they should be sent home to apply for entry in accordance with our laws.

And I believe that is a fking waste of resources, they will just get back home and start again to move toward our borders. Their time is worth less than $1/hour and many if not all of them are scared for their lives and have nothing else to lose. Our soldier's times is worth at least 30x as much but as high as 100x as much just considering salary, if you consider other benefits and infrastructure/resources that number is actually hundreds if not thousands larger. Mathematically speaking its not even close, even if we ignore all the moral issues.

But you would have us shoot them.

No. YOu would. I would have them screened and vetted and provisionally put them on a path for legalization provided they integrate into society, don't have any sort of major altercation with the law until they prove their commitment and becomes full citizen after they past our naturalization requirements.

Tell us you are trolling.

I am pretty sure you are. I have known this for a while. Like I said previously, I don't do this for your benefit anyway. I am confident that you understand my points quite well, only a moron would think that I was proposing shooting them when I was clearly illustrating why your stupid plan was well... stupid. I know that you are purposely trying to misinterpret my words for secondary motives and I am confident that this is self-evident and obvious and the only dim-witted individual would take your accusations seriously. So you can save some time by not putting idiotic, clearly i'll meaning comments to try to distract from a serious conversation.

They are certainly less fortunate and so are billions of other people around the world.

Congratufukinglations you spotted that I mistyped something and yet that still changes nothing for my point. They are fucked, they don't want to keep getting fucked and they will try to get into the US even if they get fucked for trying because if they get through, as many do, their lives are going to be at minimum 100x better and they really have much else to lose in many cases.

They may well be desperate to improve their economic circumstances but again so are billions around the world. Are you arguing that this is enough to let people come to the US?

Isn't it? There was a time we were proud to put

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

engrave into one of our most precious emblems in one of our most iconic cities and now we are discussing whether or not we should be considering shooting them. How far have we fallen?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Your link takes me to a page wi5 no numbers but instead has links to other pages.

There are links at the bottom to excel sheets with the numbers.

Also, the UN is not the USA.

The dictators who killed people in Central America are also not the US. Your claim is dependent on the phrase "somehow aided in the killing" which I've adopted in my claim that the US somehow aided in saving the lives of under 5 year olds. I will not apply stricter standards to my argument than you.

In general, the US was critical in the establishment of the UN and to this day it provides the largest contribution to the UN's funding. The further back in time you go the larger the proportion of the US contribution will have been, as it was much richer than other countries. The US also provides development aid and humanitarian assistance directly which will also have contributed.

And this doesn't take into account the know-how and technology necessary to achieve the reduction in child mortality where the US also has made substantial contributions.

Finally, this is just child mortality. Next we should consider non lethal diseases in children and adults, although it's more difficult to get statistics for this. One thing is clear though, the final total will be much, much higher than 2.4 million.

Please cite a single reason for migration for which the US is not predominantly responsible.

I have shown how they are responsible for drug violence, paramilitary violence, dictatorships, political instability, and economic downturns.

Please respond to my points rather than restating yours. And no, the burden of proof is not reversible.

Congratufukinglations you spotted that I mistyped something and yet that still changes nothing for my point. They are fucked, they don't want to keep getting fucked and they will try to get into the US even if they get fucked for trying because if they get through, as many do, their lives are going to be at minimum 100x better and they really have much else to lose in many cases.

No need to get worked up just because you made a mistake.

Just because people will try to get to developed countries doesn't mean this has to be accepted. Not sure why I have to state the obvious.

Isn't it? There was a time we were proud to put Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. engrave into one of our most precious emblems in one of our most iconic cities and now we are discussing whether or not we should be considering shooting them. How far have we fallen?

Oh, you are one of those who has fallen for the sentimental mythology of the "huddled masses".

[One Degree]

@XogGyux
Your melodramatic theorizing is not an argument. I believe you also mixed posts from others with mine and then replied as if they were mine. Carelessness or deliberate?
Morality has different levels. You seem to believe you are on the highest looking down. You should be looking up for the next level instead of lecturing others with your supposed moral superiority.
Do you have an argument how us accepting these immigrants makes anything better in their countries? What purpose does this serve? Is this just to salve some ‘guilt’ we are suppose to have?

[Pants-of-dog]

There are links at the bottom to excel sheets with the numbers.

The links did not work for me. Anyways, I will not argue the numbers and assume they are as you say you are.

My actual point is that you seem to be taking the number of all the children saved and giving the credit to the USA, even if they did not actually help.

If you wanted to look solely at number of children who die from preventable causes, we should then look at all those situations where Central American countries tried to create public health care systems through socialism and were thwarted by US interference.

Many of the preventable deaths that currently happen in Central America due to illness would never have occurred if the US did not enforce capitalism at gunpoint.

The dictators who killed people in Central America are also not the US. Your claim is dependent on the phrase "somehow aided in the killing" which I've adopted in my claim that the US somehow aided in saving the lives of under 5 year olds. I will not apply stricter standards to my argument than you.

When I mean “somehow aided...”, I am alluding to the fact that these dictatorships would not have happened without the USA. I doubt you could argue that UN vaccination programs would never have happened without the USA,

In general, the US was critical in the establishment of the UN and to this day it provides the largest contribution to the UN's funding. The further back in time you go the larger the proportion of the US contribution will have been, as it was much richer than other countries. The US also provides development aid and humanitarian assistance directly which will also have contributed.

And this doesn't take into account the know-how and technology necessary to achieve the reduction in child mortality where the US also has made substantial contributions.

Finally, this is just child mortality. Next we should consider non lethal diseases in children and adults, although it's more difficult to get statistics for this. One thing is clear though, the final total will be much, much higher than 2.4 million.

Even your numbers only show rates of child mortality. It would be illogical to hive all the credit to the UN and the US. You would need some way of quantifying how much of the reduction in child mortality is actually due to UN and US involvement,

Please respond to my points rather than restating yours. And no, the burden of proof is not reversible.

I listed all the reasons for migration. Do you disagree that these are the reasons?

I then explained how these reasons are predominantly due to US intervention. You have not disagreed with any of that either, except to mention how it was a proxy war by two sides, with no supporting evidence or even elaborating.

You also mentioned how other countries apparently escape violence despite drug cartels and economic insecurity, but again you proivded no evidence nor did you elaborate.

If you do not disagree with these claims, then we can say that there is currently no reason for migration for which the USA is not predominantly responsible.

If you wish to elaborate on your previous criticism, please do.

[Tainari88]

Every time some Central American nation doesn't have a 'yes' man in charge, they pour tons of money and military training to the yes pendejos...it is ironic that the USA wants Putin and Russian paid hackers to not interfere in its dirtball elections but paints itself as 'innocent' in the inner political life of much more fragile democracies. Damn hypocritical imperialistic creeps! We are not responsible for what goes on in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,Panama,Nicaragua or Costa Rica...no. Innocent of all that mudslide of torture,death squads,kidnapping and poverty and crime. It is appalling how disgusting the apologists for the USA's pig vomit politics are...the American rich elite have no idea how awful it is to cope with the power of money,guns and force on tiny nations. No idea. Better be happy when some foreign power messes to the point of being dependent on selling out your nation just to hold on to your rotten elitists. It is happening now..boomerang!

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The links did not work for me. Anyways, I will not argue the numbers and assume they are as you say you are.

My actual point is that you seem to be taking the number of all the children saved and giving the credit to the USA, even if they did not actually help.

If you wanted to look solely at number of children who die from preventable causes, we should then look at all those situations where Central American countries tried to create public health care systems through socialism and were thwarted by US interference.

Many of the preventable deaths that currently happen in Central America due to illness would never have occurred if the US did not enforce capitalism at gunpoint.

Sorry for the trouble with the links. This should open the excel sheet directly, although you will have to search for the countries and do some calculations to get to my numbers.

Capitalism doesn't magically prevent public health care systems from being created. But more importantly, I'm not going to consider alternative reality scenarios because you don't do it either when it comes to the US. As history shows countries can mess things up all by themselves and in the absence of a more powerful country others can intervene in various ways and for various reasons. You on the other hand assume that everything would have gone to plan and socialist paradises would have been created. Not to mention that communists and socialists when they come to power are not necessarily squeamish regarding mass killings either and that their track record in providing the same living standards as capitalist countries is poor.

When I mean “somehow aided...”, I am alluding to the fact that these dictatorships would not have happened without the USA. I doubt you could argue that UN vaccination programs would never have happened without the USA.

Please see above for why I'm not considering alternate reality scenarios.

Even your numbers only show rates of child mortality. It would be illogical to hive all the credit to the UN and the US. You would need some way of quantifying how much of the reduction in child mortality is actually due to UN and US involvement.

I'm willing to do this if you manage to quantify the US's responsibility for violence in Central America. After all, you cannot attribute all of the violence to the US either.

I listed all the reasons for migration. Do you disagree that these are the reasons?

I then explained how these reasons are predominantly due to US intervention. You have not disagreed with any of that either, except to mention how it was a proxy war by two sides, with no supporting evidence or even elaborating.

You also mentioned how other countries apparently escape violence despite drug cartels and economic insecurity, but again you proivded no evidence nor did you elaborate.

If you do not disagree with these claims, then we can say that there is currently no reason for migration for which the USA is not predominantly responsible.

If you wish to elaborate on your previous criticism, please do.

As I said, I do consider the US to be partly responsible for the political instability, but not for anything else you mentioned. The US is not Central America's dad.

[Tainari88]

Kaiser what the USA is to Central America is the Destroyer. The one that trains the elitist torture,murder and horror. You should be ashamed of what has gone on in the name of the US in Central America. My mother was there in 1980 during some bad times. She was on a literacy campaign. The peasants described U.S. soldiers training fascist troops on how to torture,mutilate, rape and kill in the name of stopping 'communism'. A more humble,Christian and communal group of people is hard to find....no they are not the Dad. They are Freddy Krueger.

[Drlee]

Come on. Do you expect us to believe that US military advisors were teaching them how to rape and murder people. Do be serious for a moment.

It seems that most of you have forgotten that the Soviet Union and Cuba were pumping aid to and organizing guerilla warriors who were attempting to overthrow the established governments. But the fault is all the US. What simpleminded arguments. I wish some of you would read a history book. Both sides.

American advisors did not train indigenous forces to rape, pillage and murder. I learned how to kill people quite effectively when I was in the Army. Using that skill for evil would be a choice not the fault of my trainers. But I hear you say that we were training repressive regimes. Those FAR in the hills around my city in Guatemala would have killed me instantly if they had a chance. The fact that I treated them without turning them in might have bought me some time. Maybe.

But on POFO communist all good, capitalist, all bad. I have yet to see a thread about the gulags killing tens of millions, the millions killed by Mao or the executions under Castro. All US bad. Childish. And shallow.

[Tainari88]

One sentence Dr Lee -the school of the Americas. A who is who list of torturers, murderers and death squads responsible for it all. Who trained them? Loo it up. I know all the names.Do you?

[Tainari88]

Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

It is described in very unfavorable terms. Who graduated from the American sponsored manual on killing Dr Lee? It wasn't commies they were bent on destroying, it was priests, nuns, community based workers, banana field workers, etc can not pay those people well. Got to send death squads to stop the commies. It is shameful in the extreme!

[One Degree]

One sentence Dr Lee -the school of the Americas. A who is who list of torturers, murderers and death squads responsible for it all. Who trained them? Loo it up. I know all the names.Do you?

What about it? They were accused that some of the material was on interrogation techniques and 8 hours of instruction in human rights wasn’t enough. Countries sent their people to the US for this training. We didn’t force them to take it.

[Tainari88]

You have a bad idea on how politics work one degree. The school was set up to sponsor, train and spread banned torture, terror and civilian killing en masse. The evidence is overwhelming and they were forced to change their name to try to avoid the horrible reputation they had with the death squads. Especially in El Salvador.

[Drlee]

You really have no clue what goes on there. Just rumor. And about all you can say is that former graduates of WHINSEC have done some bad things. Graduates of Vassar have done bad things. But my guess is that you do not really understand what is taught at WHINSEC. I will not discuss it on this forum. You should look hard at what is happening now.

Let's see.....

Admiral Yamamoto, planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor, attended Harvard.

Stalin, murderer of millions, attended seminary. No doubt they taught him to murder people.

It is absurd to suggest that WHINSEC teaches foreign military people to murder their own citizens.

Tell you what mija. Let's go school by school and blame it for what their students subsequently did.

WHINSEC has an international committee that reviews the curriculum.

You have a bad idea on how politics work one degree. The school was set up to sponsor, train and spread banned torture, terror and civilian killing en masse. The evidence is overwhelming and they were forced to change their name to try to avoid the horrible reputation they had with the death squads. Especially in El Salvador.

This is simply untrue.

Just another blame America first deal.

[One Degree]

You have a bad idea on how politics work one degree. The school was set up to sponsor, train and spread banned torture, terror and civilian killing en masse. The evidence is overwhelming and they were forced to change their name to try to avoid the horrible reputation they had with the death squads. Especially in El Salvador.

If the evidence is overwhelming then it should be easy to supply. You are doing what @Drlee said, taking a one sided simplistic view. Yes, it was a part of Cold War tactics to limit Communist influence in the Americas. Why do you find this surprising? Or evil? Your view comes from increased Communist influence, despite these efforts,who naturally would object to this. Both sides were using these tactics, not just one.