nerdgirl 0 #1 June 4, 2009 During the 1980s, did you consider the likelihood that Communists from South and Central America would invade the US to be a legitimate threat to US national security? I didn't and don't recall others thinking so. Albeit during a good part of the 1980s my primary interests were not foreign affairs or national security. It was an argument that I encountered earlier this evening. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 June 4, 2009 INVADE?!? No. It would have been ridiculous to believe that. Have communist influence and take over certain Central and South America countries, sure, that had been going on for sometime. But invade the US. No way! I can't think of a single person I've ever known, even the paranoid ones, that thought that was going to happen.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 June 4, 2009 Daniel Ortega certainly painyed some good PR with his buddies like Ed Asner. My mom was convinced I had to go to college so I "wouldn't be on [my] belly on Bananaland.". She viewed it as a huge threat, post Panama Canal giveaway, Sandinistas, and add Monroe doctrine. Little did she suspect 15 years later I'd say, "Hey, mom. Yeah. Guess what I'm doing this summer? I'm spending a couple weeks on my belly in Bananaland. Yeah, a couple of weeks doing OPFOR in Honduras." She looked like she shit her britches. She may have. I dunno. I hope not. Still, recall that thinking involved domino theory. If Nicaragua falls than El Salvador falls. If El Salvador falls then Niagara Falls. If Niagara Falls then Freefalls.". Of course it didn't quite work out that way and hasn't since Vietnam (remember when the fear was if we losy vietnam then it would spread and communists would massacre - which they did in Cambodia.) I thought Central America was a mere nuisance. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #4 June 4, 2009 QuoteI thought Central America was a mere nuisance. Sadly a nuisance that costed hundreds of thousand men and women their lives. US policies in south america during the cold war was borderline genocide. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #5 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI thought Central America was a mere nuisance. Sadly a nuisance that costed hundreds of thousand men and women their lives. US policies in south america during the cold war was borderline genocide. /Martin Agree Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 June 4, 2009 No. The mentality that got us into Iran-Contra was the same mentality that got us into the second Iraq war. Even some of the players in the Iraq mess were the same (or the progeny of) those in the Iran-Contra mess. Need I say more? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 June 4, 2009 I remember discussions about it. I had relatives that worked for State and CIA at the time. It was never an immanent "threat", but I believe the concerns at the time were rooted in Mexico's stability (or fragility) at the time.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 June 4, 2009 Also remember that Mexico has never been truly stable within the last century. It was also the single largest hub of activity for the KGB in this hemisphere. Mexico was against us in two world wars, we always have to keep that in mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #9 June 4, 2009 Mexico fought on the Allied side in WW2. Unless you're talking about a different war. They were too internally strife-torn to take part in WW1. And their official stance is neutrality. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #10 June 4, 2009 Officially they were on our side, in actuality they were not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #11 June 4, 2009 Quote During the 1980s, did you consider the likelihood that Communists from South and Central America would invade the US to be a legitimate threat to US national security? Catch Red Dawn on TBS lately? Elvisio "stopped 'em butt-cold" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 June 4, 2009 Where's the "no, I did too much acid to remember the 80's option?" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 June 4, 2009 Quote During the 1980s, did you consider the likelihood that Communists from South and Central America would invade the US to be a legitimate threat to US national security? I don't recall it being a threat of invasion, more that as we were increasingly surrounded by commies, that we might go the same route. Certainly the first 6 years of the 80s were much chillier than the last 4. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #14 June 4, 2009 QuoteOfficially they were on our side, in actuality they were not. On what facts do you base that?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 June 4, 2009 Quote During the 1980s, did you consider the likelihood that Communists from South and Central America would invade the US to be a legitimate threat to US national security? Did you consider that prior to the 80's the false information/assumtion the US government gave its people, I.e. The soviets are bringing nuclear missiles to cuba. almost had you all killed? The soviets already had the nuclear missiles in the silos there and the consensus from the US people was to invade, the warmongers wanted to invade, and if one missile went to cuba the soviets would have unleashed. The USA creates its own danger by being big-headed."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteOfficially they were on our side, in actuality they were not. On what facts do you base that? The facts found in the library of Crazytown.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #17 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteOfficially they were on our side, in actuality they were not. On what facts do you base that? They were conspiring with the evil Canadians to come at us when we least expected it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #18 June 4, 2009 OMG -- the dreaded pincer movement Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #19 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOfficially they were on our side, in actuality they were not. On what facts do you base that? They were conspiring with the evil Canadians to come at us when we least expected it. We're not evil. That plan was for your own good.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #20 June 4, 2009 I lived in an ungaurded and unsecured military neighborhood on a small island in the Mediterranean Sea so my concern wasn't really South America."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
