Terry Mauro Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate? I would say no. Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination? As I pointed out on the Guatemala Coup thread, there is no evidence that Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had anything to do with the murder of Francisco Javier Arana. However, it is true that he was very unpopular with the people of Guatemala when it was discovered that Arana tried to arrange a CIA backed coup (public opinion polls showed that he was unable to win in a democratically held election). This is what Tommy Corcoran told Thomas C. Mann, the director of the State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs in the spring of 1950. Public opinion polls showed overwhelming support for Arbenz. You have to understand that Arbenz was a national hero in Guatemala because of the role he played in removing the American-backed military dictatorship. Corcoran asked Mann if he had any plans to prevent Arbenz from being elected. Mann rightly replied: “That is for the people of that country to decide.” Unhappy with this reply, Corcoran paid a call on the Allen Dulles, the deputy director of the CIA. Dulles, who represented United Fruit in the 1930s, was far more interested in Corcoran’s ideas. “During their meeting Dulles explained to Corcoran that while the CIA was sympathetic to United Fruit, he could not authorize any assistance without the support of the State Department. Dulles assured Corcoran, however, that whoever was elected as the next president of Guatemala would not be allowed to nationalize the operations of United Fruit.” In November, 1950, Arbenz received more than 60 per cent of the popular vote. Samuel Zemurray, United Fruit Company's largest shareholder, ordered Corcoran to organize an anti-Arbenz campaign in the American media. This included the claim that Guatemala was the beginning of "Soviet expansion in the Americas". This included the story that Arbenz had murdered Arana. Dulles, Zemurray, and Corcoran tried to persuade Harry Truman to order the overthrow of Arbenz. Truman refused and that is why the CIA had to wait until Dwight Eisenhower was elected to power. Like other Republican presidents since 1954, Eisenhower had no scruples about overthrowing a democratically elected government. Even if the evidence suggested that Arbenz had murdered Arana, I would still be against the overthrow of his government by the CIA. Let us look at the logic of your position. The leaders of the Soviet Union suspected that right-wing forces murdered John F. Kennedy. Did that give the KGB the right to plot the overthrow of Lyndon Johnson? Why should the United States be the only country in the world that has the right to overthrow governments it does not like? ********************************************************* "Even if the evidence suggested that Arbenz had murdered Arana, I would still be against the overthrow of his government by the CIA. Let us look at the logic of your position. The leaders of the Soviet Union suspected that right-wing forces murdered John F. Kennedy. Did that give the KGB the right to plot the overthrow of Lyndon Johnson? Why should the United States be the only country in the world that has the right to overthrow governments it does not like?" It's quite obvious the Geneva Accords didn't amount to anything more that a pile of papers to Dulles and the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royce Bierma Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well let us start off with #1.If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate? I would say no. Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination? WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? "Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well let us start off with #1. If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate? I would say no. Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination? WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? "Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma Royce, read post #14. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? While I may or may not condone or endorse what people believe in their private lives, I fail to see the relevance of those beliefs to what they post here. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Well let us start off with #1. If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate? I would say no. Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination? WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? "Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma Royce, read post #14. Steve. Royce, I agree with Steve. If you have the time to read all Tim's posts (a year's long service leave would be about the time needed if, like me, you"re not an overly fast reader), you'll see that Tim has a long history of questioning the motives and even the intelligence of those who disagree with him or have the temerity to suggest the involvement of groups or individuals he holds dear. He often states that his knowledge of the law must prevail when berating those who disagree. Tim's dished out a ton of spiteful invective and also threatened legal recourse. This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 (edited) Well let us start off with #1. If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate? I would say no. Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination? WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? "Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma Royce, read post #14. Steve. [EDITED FOR LENGTH] He often states that his knowledge of the law must prevail when berating those who disagree. Tim's dished out a ton of spiteful invective and also threatened legal recourse. This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr. Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out. Edited February 16, 2006 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr.Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out. The initiation of an entire thread devoted to Tim Gratz's political views isn't questionable because it's undeserved; it's questionable because it's inappropriate and crass. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr.Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out. The initiation of an entire thread devoted to Tim Gratz's political views isn't questionable because it's undeserved; it's questionable because it's inappropriate and crass. T.C. Crass? Yeah, probably. Inappropriate? No, not necessarily. IMO, no other member so often takes issue with others about the suggestion of people who had a role in the assassination. Tim acts as like gatekeeper, ferociously defending his favorites from any hint of suspicion. His regular questioning of the motives of those who disagree is certainly crass and has become a common feature of the Forum. Some have suggested that this is effectively Tim's Forum. The amount of his posts far exceeds that of any other member. If Tim wants to establish this role for himself that's fine, but there's no reason why the Forum cannot periodically examine the motives of one who wishes to play such a role. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Even if the evidence suggested that Arbenz had murdered Arana, I would still be against the overthrow of his government by the CIA. Let us look at the logic of your position[, Tim]. The leaders of the Soviet Union suspected that right-wing forces murdered John F. Kennedy. Did that give the KGB the right to plot the overthrow of Lyndon Johnson? Why should the United States be the only country in the world that has the right to overthrow governments it does not like? ____________________________________ John, Uh..., gosh, I dunno.... Because God's on OUR side??? FWIW, Thomas ____________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy. ___________________________________________ Robert, Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often. FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collins Piper Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 In my experience in dealing with political types of all stripes, I do have to say that I've found Hard-Line Right Wing Neo-Conservative Fox News Devotees such as Mr. Gritz to be the most hard-headed and unswerving. That point of view is almost cult-like in the way that these folks make icons of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, ad nauseum. I mean these people actually read (and enjoy) THE WEEKLY STANDARD! Come on, seriously! Oh, by the way, speaking of Adolf Hitler and THE BARNES REVIEW's article saying Hitler should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize, I guess nobody seems to know what FORWARD (an eminently respectable New York-based Jewish newspaper) reported some years ago to the shock of many: Adolf Hitler was once proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize . . . by Gertrude Stein. Whoops! Yes, THE Gertrude Stein, a Jewish Feminist Liberal Lesbian and today a virtual icon in certain circles (although probably not Tim Gratz's circle!) Yes, Ms. Stein proposed Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize for precisely the same reasons that were outlined in THE BARNES REVIEW'S deliberately provocatively titled article. Just because it wasn't reported breathlessly by Dan Rather doesn't mean that Evil Anti-Semite Michael Collins Piper is making it up. Check the FORWARD website. The article is probably archived there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Do you agree that Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace Prize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr.Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out. The initiation of an entire thread devoted to Tim Gratz's political views isn't questionable because it's undeserved; it's questionable because it's inappropriate and crass. T.C. Crass? Yeah, probably. Inappropriate? No, not necessarily. IMO, no other member so often takes issue with others about the suggestion of people who had a role in the assassination. Tim acts as like gatekeeper, ferociously defending his favorites from any hint of suspicion. His regular questioning of the motives of those who disagree is certainly crass and has become a common feature of the Forum. Some have suggested that this is effectively Tim's Forum. The amount of his posts far exceeds that of any other member. If Tim wants to establish this role for himself that's fine, but there's no reason why the Forum cannot periodically examine the motives of one who wishes to play such a role. FWIW. ************************************************************* "Crass? Yeah, probably. Inappropriate? No, not necessarily. IMO, no other member so often takes issue with others about the suggestion of people who had a role in the assassination. Tim acts as like gatekeeper, ferociously defending his favorites from any hint of suspicion. His regular questioning of the motives of those who disagree is certainly crass and has become a common feature of the Forum. Some have suggested that this is effectively Tim's Forum. The amount of his posts far exceeds that of any other member. If Tim wants to establish this role for himself that's fine, but there's no reason why the Forum cannot periodically examine the motives of one who wishes to play such a role. FWIW." Yeah but guys, I consider myself a revolutionary socialist, yet I also find T.G. amusing and articulate. And, if you read enough of his posts you'll see that he has made concessions when proven off base, or incorrect on certain issues. The fascists of this world are never going to change their views, or their love of exploitation, greed, and manifest destiny. The same as we socialists refuse to accept man's inhumanity toward man, or caste systems of economical inequity. That doesn't mean that we have to incessantly castigate one another when our views become so diametrically opposite, so as to create a battle royale. I think we have enough of that going on in the photographic section of this forum. T.G. is in no way as caustic as Craig Lamson. Hell, T.G.'s downright hospitable compared to the photogrammetry trashing crew. Plus, the fact that he's an excellent debater, and you can't hold that against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE? "Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma ________________________________________________ Roy, Perhaps you should read (or re-read) John's response to this exact question in post #14 of this thread. Of course, (to use one of his favorite clauses), Gratz should have rephrased the question to read, "Why, by the way, is a thread on my political views of any consequence to the JFK assassination case as it is being debated and discussed on this Forum?" That changes the whole "ballgame," doesn't it folks? In addition to using unethical "courtroom" or "playground" tactics like insinuation and outright character assassination (pun intended, Tim), Gratz is continually "argu[ing] facts not in evidence" and "pretend[ing] that the case has already been made and extrapolate[ing] from there" (see Robert's post #7), and continually trying to commandeer this Debate and appropriate it as his own personal and exclusive "soap box" so that he can fulfill one of his his most important preordained (?) "missions" to mankind-- convincing us that Castro and Trafficante "dood da deed!" As mentioned on another thread a month or two ago, Gratz's antics and tactics probably tend to discourage a greater number of honest, inquiring, and/or informed people from participating actively in this "Debate." FWIW, Thomas ________________________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy. ___________________________________________ Robert, Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often. FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________________ ******************************************************** "whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often." But, seriously Thomas. I don't think T.G. exhibits any need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking. After all is said and done, I haven't really noted any vitriolic outbursts, nor any overly condescending verbal abuse coming from his quarter. In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree? Edited February 17, 2006 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now