that will somehow exclude the terrorism that is practiced byitself and its allies; the terrorism of the powerful. Under the U.S. Codes definitions ofterrorism, are included violent acts...intended to...intimidate and coerce a civilian population; to influence thepolicy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct ofa government by assassination or kidnapping...[32] Well, since when is the U.S. against suchactions? It has used them extensively inits support and training of death squads throughout Latin America for thirtyyears, training at least 8,659 Brazilian military in the 60s, and rewardingwith economic aid the countries that used the learned methods of torture ontheir own people[33]. Not to mention the countless terrorist actscommitted against Cuba, for some time the target of the most significant andconstant of these acts in the world, including countless attempts toassassinate Fidel Castro[34]. In El Salvador, a U.S. mercenary armymassacred and slaughtered more than 60,000 people[35]. In Nicaragua, the U.S. were supportingcounter-insurgency maniacs that had no ideology at all, that would mistreatand kill peasants indefinitely in order to fight a ghost called communism. To quote Chomsky (1999):Thecrime of the Sandinistas was to carry out successful development. Right after the revolution, they immediatelybegan to divert resources to the poor part of the population. And this, incidentally, is recognized. Its recognized by charitable developmentagencies, by the international banks and so on. So, for example, the Inter-American Development Bank, in January 1983,wrote a report stating that Nicaragua has made impressive growth advances insocio-economic development and has laid the basis for extensive futuregrowth. Thats the crime. The United States hasnot allowed countries to do any kind of structural reform in order to bringwealth to their people. It sees anyattempt, like the countless examples not mentioned here, of reform, as a threat the threat of the good example. Itfigures that if a country is successful in bringing wealth, land, education,health, and, most importantly, political participation to its people, thatothers are bound to follow. So the U.S. exterminates any kind of state doestoo much for its own people. Countryafter country has tried to institute reforms in order to make their livingstandards rise, and the U.S. has followed its principle of undermining allforms of democracy. What the U.S. reallywants is not democracy at all, it is to know if a country will allow itself tobe robbed of its resources and if its corporations will be able to exploit atwill[36]. These are its basic concerns, and if that canbe done through a democracy, a fascist regime, a monarchy, or whatever, thatdoesnt really concern the U.S. One justhas to look at the countless countries where the U.S. supported and stillsupports military dictatorships, like Pakistan, monarchies such as SaudiArabia, and neoliberal democracies such as Brazil. The Pakistani dictator, Musharraf, took powersaying that he was going to save democracy, as did many other dictatorsaround the world[37]. The United States, in its own denial, is notrealizing that, by fostering fascist regimes around the world, together withoppressive democracies, it is dooming itself to terror. It was the U.S. that gave Saddam Hussein, theIraqi dictator, the arms and power that he used to