Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ubermenzch]

VisitorQs original statement:

[bacasper]

[Fox]

[bacasper]

[visitorq]

[ubermenzch]

REPOST<>Because it still applies
Visitorq, in an act of desperation, brought up Rockefeller again.
Quote:

[visitorq]

[ubermenzch]

From VisitorQ;

[visitorq]

From the World Bank's own webpage:

"In the late 1970s [Carter's administration] and the entire 1980s, natural and man-made disasters resulted in Nicaragua�s economic output shrinking by almost 40 percent and debt soaring to 400 percent of GDP. In 1990 Nicaragua was one of the most highly indebted and economically unstable countries in the world, and by 1993 half of all Nicaraguans were living in poverty."
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/NICARAGUAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20214837~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:258689,00.html

Yes, under the puppet Carter administration, Nicaragua fell quite nicely into the clutches of the global banking establishment, where it remains to this day permanently indebted and impoverished.

[ubermenzch]

So, I believe I've shown that the administration was not dominated by a collection of like-minded members of the Trilateral Commission. Visitorq will now argue that one member, say Rockefeller's best friend Brzezinski, had the lion's share of power and influence during Carter's term of office.
But in mid-1977, Carter initially sided with Vance and the State Department in the matter of America's security relationship with China, deciding against the sale of American weapons to Peking, which was the position advocated by Brzezinski. By early 1978, Carter was angered by "Moscow's reluctance to incorporate deep reductions of strategic arms into a SALT agreement, by continued Soviet and Cuban activity in Western Africa, and especially by the Kremlins intervention in Ethiopia in early 1978. These Soviet decisions, coupled with Moscow's ongoing augmentation of it's conventional and nuclear forces, gradually led the President away from Vance's policy of renewed Soviet-American detente and toward the strategy of vigorous containment advocated by Brzezinski." (Source is 1st link, p. 73-75) He first pursued the approach advocated by Vance and the State Department, but was pushed by events towards Brzezinski. It was not the hidden hand of Rockefeller that compelled Carter to change course. Events!

And I don't even bring up Nicaragua, which Gopher rightly brought up, and visitorq predictably ignored. More evidence that Brzezinski's influence was not all-pervading.

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[ubermenzch]

The administration had started off with an "attempt to create a new foreign policy consensus based on ideas of 'global community' and international interdependence, and centered on human rights, came under pressure in 1978, especially in relation to the conflicts in Angola, Zaire and the Horn of Africa." As I have shown, Secretary of State Vance was a strong supporter of this approach, and Vice President Mondale also was partial to it. Brzezinski, as I have shown, represented the main opposition to this approach.

By 1979, the feasibility of Vance and Mondale's approach had "disintegrated. Percieved changes in public opinion, shifts in intra-administration power relations and the emergence of a well-organized New Right critique of Carter's foreign policy all contributed to this disintegration, and to the substitution of a more orthodox, security oriented, cold war approach." Influence and credibility had now swung over to Brzezinski and his advocated approach. Why was this?

VisitorQ would like to misrepresent my position (and simplify the theories of Nassim Nicholas Taleb) by attributing to me the position that "events are random". The Carter administration made certain decisions just because. Period. But that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that the historical record shows unequivocally that the Carter administration made a significant change in it's foreign policy direction late in it's first term. I'm saying that this change of direction did not at all happen randomly, as if in an intellectual vaccuum. I'm saying that Carter did not one-sidedly follow the advice of one man or woman in particular, nor did his approach seem to fit into a particular ideology. Rather, he was being practical. The decisions were made in reaction to events in a fluid environment, with Carter seeking and listening to differing points of view.

Your answer to this is that I don't know what happened behind closed doors. But neither do you. All you have is conjecture. I have documented sources. (All quotes thus far come from p. 150 of visitorq's source a few posts above this).
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=2GK7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=carter+vance+brzezinski+nicaragua&source=bl&ots=Rjmut3HRdN&sig=Nme5RQvBE4sLhikGYev7uWyw2wY&hl=th&ei=yHu3SuH9N86fkQWAkOTHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=carter%20vance%20brzezinski%20nicaragua&f=false

You say that Carter's Nicaragua policy was very much in tune with the "agenda of the global banking establishment controlled by people like David Rockefeller." Why then did their "puppet president" choose not to hasten the transfer of power from the Samoza regime to the Sandanistas? Why did he act contrary to pressure from Trilateralists that would have had him order an American military intervention?

[visitorq]

[Gopher]

What about the Panamanians and the Costa Ricans' central roles in toppling the Somozas? Not to mention Fidel Castro.

Are you even aware of their participation, the political pressure, the arms sales, etc.? If all you can talk about is the Trilateral Commission, I doubt you know very much at all about Central American affairs, under the Carter administration or any other administration for that matter.