Well Done expose on USA international subterfuge
Confessions Economic Hit John Perkins
The modus operandi of the American empire has always been a lot more subtle than that of our imperial predecesors, like Britain and Rome. We don't send in the army and install puppets, except as an absolute last resort (Vietnam, Iraq). That looks bad, it's expensive, and it's too much trouble. All we really want is to control other countries' economies and get what we want from them, particularly oil. As much as possible we try to use private companies (with close ties to our government) to do this--that way we can even deny we are an empire! John Perkins shows exactly how this works, the diabolically brilliant way we snooker gullible foreign leaders into taking out huge loans that they'll never be able to repay--this is what Perkins did. He was part of the con job. Then we have them right where we want them--through our proxies we dictate repayment terms that pretty much allow us to run their economies to our liking. I notice some reviewers have questioned how believable the book is, but it doesn't seem particularly outlandish to me. This isn't 007 stuff. There are no secret weapons or mind control drugs or super villains here. Perkins just shows, step by step, how America gets it's way through far less flamboyant means. But it's not just cold analysis--it's Perkins own story, written in the first person, of how he came to see how evil this all was and finally got out of the game. It's a fascinating, sometimes appalling, but ultimately hopeful story.
Get your Confessions Economic Hit John Perkins Now!Category Article pressure washer
Answer should be from the book "Confessions of an economic hit man". Please help, I need to wright a page answer, so far got only half.
This comes from the book "John Perkins Confessions of an Economic hit man" In modern times, Colombia has had a reputation for producing some of Latin America's most brilliant writers, artists, philosophers, and other intellectuals, as well as fiscally responsible and relatively dem¬ ocratic governments. It became the model for President Kennedy's nation-building programs throughout Latin America. Unlike Guate¬ mala, its government was not tarnished with the reputation of being a CIA creation, and unlike Nicaragua, the government was an elected one, which presented an alternative to both right-wing dictators and Communists, finally, unlike so many other countries, including powerful Brazil and Argentina, Colombia did not mistrust the United States. The image of Colombia as a reliable ally has continued, de¬ spite the blemish of its drug cartels.1
This comes from the book "John Perkins Confessions of an Economic hit man" In modern times, Colombia has had a reputation for producing some of Latin America's most brilliant writers, artists, philosophers, and other intellectuals, as well as fiscally responsible and relatively dem¬ ocratic governments. It became the model for President Kennedy's nation-building programs throughout Latin America. Unlike Guate¬ mala, its government was not tarnished with the reputation of being a CIA creation, and unlike Nicaragua, the government was an elected one, which presented an alternative to both right-wing dictators and Communists, finally, unlike so many other countries, including powerful Brazil and Argentina, Colombia did not mistrust the United States. The image of Colombia as a reliable ally has continued, de¬ spite the blemish of its drug cartels.
Would they stand out like a sore thumb? Would he/she be ostracised by the others? How long would it take to become just as corrupt as the rest of them?
I am also fully aware that Obama has also assigned several new top positions by "retiring" in a most unprecedented event. Leaving us to question government and their motives again!
Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Nader, James Hansen, John Perkins, Valerie Plame, Jimmy Carter, and even Leonard Peltier have all been dismissed for speaking against wars, lies, greed, and for equality and prosperity. Why?
How did the US use economic, social and political reasons to justify/guided their foreign policy during the age of Imperialism?