Pax Americana

[Kramerman]

As for your example of 1812: You forget a little thing like the Napoleonic Wars in which the British had a "small" role at the time. Yes, the Us won various ship to ship engagements, which is fine for the history books, but would not have meant much if a European power had really tried hard. The thing is, there were only 3 powers that might try, the UK, France, and Russia perhaps. Spain was too weak, and they failed when as Pedro points out they did try. No other European powers were naval ones with the ability to take over anything like the new Republics of the Americas

i basically said this. if a european power REALLY wanted to, it COULD have, but they did not because they didnt want to deal with it when they could have obtained colonies much easier elsewhere. that is my only arguement

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

Had it not been for communist assaults on Iran and Vietnam, we would never have been friendly to the Diem and Shah regimes, just to name two examples. These guys appears to have been just as much thugs as Castro.

And what about communist movements from inside, democratically elected ones? Do those count as "assaults" as well? That is what shows the hypocrasy of US intentions v democracy more than anythign else, our willingness to ally with internal conservatives to destroy internal popular movements that were socialists.

I'm sorry, GePap, but any opposition we had to communist/socialist "popular" movements was primarily based on Cold War dynamics. Even if they deserved our support, for example, the African National Congress, IIRC, we denied it or opposed them outright due to their coziness with the USSR.

I think it was Jimmy Carter who began to change the "official" view of the propriety of allying with the despicable. However, we still accept support and from less than democratic regimes during the time of war as the list of our supporters in the recent Iraq war illustrates.

[GePap]

The very fact you put popular in quotes shows your bias.

As for the excuse of cold war dynamics: that is why saying the Us cares about dmeocracy is seen as hypocritical: if the US is the side fighting for freedom and the rights of people to chose their own destiny, and the soviets are the evil ones trying to impose an alien ideology, then the US should have been backing any democratcially elected governments. If socialists turned to the soviets, it was BECAUSE OF US intolerance. If the US won;t give aid cause your gov. is socialist, whom are you left to go to who is willing, for their own reasons, to give you money? Surprise, the USSR!

Truman said it best with his saying about Trujillo.

[Ned]

GePap, as I said, it made no difference whether the "popular" movements against corrupt governments were "good," if they were allied with the USSR in any way, they were our enemy.

GePap, there seems to be a theme to your views: that popular communists moments were not allied with the USSR in their infancy. It is only when we showed hostility that they turned to the USSR for support.

I think this is largely nonsense. Give me even one example where this was true - and don't start with Ho Chi Minh or Mao. Ho and Mao were both exceptions because they had been American allies during WWII.

[Spiffor]

At first, Castro was nothing than an Antiyanqui guerillero. His political action was led against the Batista regime (which made of Cuba the bordello of the US), and it took much of its support from this nationalist / populist perspective. Castro also believed in a socialist economy.

However, Castro seeked the Soviet protection only after the US had turned him down. There were attempts of diplomatic rationalization, and beg for help towards the US before Castro's regimes turned to the USSR.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Kramerman

the US military was definately weak by british or french standards, but the US would have been a big pain in the ass still if a european power tried to take a piece of the new world again. I bigger pain in the ass than they would have wanted to deal with, when equally if not more lucrative colonies could be found elsewhere.

It was about impossible for the UK or France to occupy the US; the war of independence had clearly shown that. But stopping a european power from making inroads down south is an entirely different matter. The US was pretty much like Europe is now: About impossible to take over, but force projection sucked/sucks absolutely.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned
K, I disagree with this analysis our our behavior during the Cold War:

"the reason why we opposed communists/some socialists is because they closed their markets off. we were afraid of the spread of communism because that meant fewer markets which equals less cash to the very industrious and commercial USA that depends on making cash to exist"

which communists or socialists that closed their markets off to us and supported the Soviets did we support? i cant recall any. the only socialists/communists we did support were either allies and or opened their markets to us

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned


I cannot agree with this.

During WWII, we supported Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. The reason we did was obvious.

Post WWII, we similarly supported dictators and other undemocratic regimes that were on our side in the Cold War, and opposed regimes that supported the USSR. Just as in WWII, we shoved our idealism asside for the sake of survival.

People who ignore the context and attempt to make the US out as being a fraud when we say we support democracy as a whole are being disengenuous to the extent they know what actually happened. (I put this cautionary note here, because I have seen a lot of communist propaganda that has been adopted by many as their version of history.)

Had it not been for communist assaults on Iran and Vietnam, we would never have been friendly to the Diem and Shah regimes, just to name two examples. These guys appears to have been just as much thugs as Castro.

hi ,

the reason is indeed clear , ask " von C " , " sun " and whole bunch of others , .... it shall all lead to this >>> the enemy of my enemy is my friend , .......

have a nice day

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Kramerman

this is a concern of the US, it may be secondary, but none-the-less a concern.


oh clearly

Yes, clearly.

we support both. it only appears we support the latter more because it is MUCH easier to support. to enforce capitalism is a piece of cake. to enforce democracy requires us to deploy large amounts of troops, in force, overseas. The US only has so much manpower and so much willingness to see our blood spilt for others. when you ask why we helped in some places and not in others, quite simply it has to do with the fact that some places are more in our interest, and since we only have so many resources to deploy, we will deal with the problems that will give us the most benefit. is this not sensible to you? or is the USA just inherently evil for not totally giving of itself in the name of its ideals until she collapses from over-exertion?

I think the hundreds of thousands of human beings (not just points in a game of moral mathematics, but actual people) that have been slaughtered (over 500,000 in Indonesia alone) would have preffered if you hadn't 'exerted' yourselves to 'bring democracy' to them in the first place. The US 'interests' are the same as the interests of any empire in the past, to expand and seize what lies beyond its current borders of influence, especially if there are rich pickings to be had.

Calling the resources of somebody elses country your 'interests' doesn't make it your inherant right to grab those resources for yourself, and stamp on any local goverment that wants to use them for its own population, especially governments that were popular movements.

By the way the Corporate powers that buy all of Americas governments long before they have reached office see it as completely sensible to spend 5 US tax-dollars to defend 1 Corporate dollar. The US offers one of the largest Welfare systems for corporations at the expence of the US taxpayer, American taxpayers are being thuroughly milked to support the military/industrial-complex they have been programmed to think is in their interests. This system is not sustainable, and it will eventually crash, just look at your deficit. Future history will show it, what happens when you let your country be run by corporations, when you let corporations build an empire using your nations resources.

The US has never been consistant with its alleged principals, not since the end of the revolution.

they stole our property. gee, we are such bastards for opposing them....how could we?

You stole their property, gee, they are such communist/islamist/whateverist bastards for opposing you... how could they?

no, im a realist who understands that a country can only fight so hard in its beliefs to its own detriment if it wants to be successful. you on the other hand are a typical conspiracy theorist whos irrational anti-americanism is illogical and self-perpetuating, like a bad religion. i mean no insult by that, just my observation.

Yes, it's an outrageous thing for me to beleiv that a powerful nation perpetually uses it's power for the ends of achieving further power. Your world view though, that despite the long lists of atrocities commited by the US and her allies, America is essentially a nation that wants to increase the ability of weaker resource rich nations to empower themselves (and the will of their people) is completely beleivable.

our leadership is trying to maintain america's power and keep us from decline. to do so they sometimes have to do things that compromise our ideals, such as supporting bastard regimes to fight our enemies and stuff like that. i think thats understandable. i guess i can understand why you dont, you find it hypocritical. all i have to say is GET OVER IT.

No, your leadership is trying to maintain their power, and the power of the friends in the oil industry and the arms industry, and all the sharholders that dwell in the top 10 percentile of American income. It's the enemies of those interests in far away countries (and stuff like that) that they are fighting against (Empires make soooo many enemies). Do you really think Phi Truong the Vietnamese rice-farmer or Muhammed Salaam the Iranian goatherder have any reason at all to hate Jeb Johnson the American mechanic? No, the Vietnamese farmer has reason to despise the bastard Government officials that ordered the contamination of millions of acres of Vietnam with Agent Orange, poisining the land and the people for cancerous generations to come.

i dont know exactly what you are talking about, but yes, our leaders are trying to make the US a better place. that is why they are voted into office, if they didnt, they would never be elected or reelected for sure. When they can make the world a better place too, they try. America first. you seem very upset about this very reasonable and understandable fact

I don't care if all they did was try to make America a better place, in fact it would be better if they did that and just let the rest of the world find its own way, if the history of American interventions since WW2 is anything to go by.

What upsets me so much is that they keep trying to make the 3rd world a nastier place to live in. Personally I could make my home a better place to live if I bust into my neighbours home, took his stuff, and then told him if he wants it back he'd have to pay me a hundred bucks.

It's way more profitable to be... 'evil' then it is to be fair or even good. Any drug-dealer or pimp or Mafia Godfather knows that. American values are based on aquiring profit, this means that for the most part- if it's profits you're interested in, you will tend towards doing nasty things to other peoples countries.

The prolem the US leadership has always had, is that it sold itself to its own people as a freedom loving democracy where the people would never be beholden to some ruling elite. That's what it says on the label anyway. So it lies and tries to keep its citizens comfortable and insular and see their country through rose tinted glasses.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Yeah, well the Nazis built the Autobahn and made the trains run on time. So I guess except for the Jew thing I should admire them too?

I never said I admired the bastards, I was just stating a fact in relation to why Iraq was a developed country by the standards of the region prior to GW1, I certainly was not endorsing National Socialism or the Ba'athist regime. It's interesting that you would translate an objective statement regarding Ba'athist agenda and the state of Iraq at that time, into praise for them and the nazis on my part. By the way the autobahnm was built under the Nazi's but planned before they 'took office'.

Also I did not intend to belittle National Socialims oppression of 'external groups', the nazi persecution of the Jews is by no means a little thing and niether was Saddams gasing of the Iraqi Kurds with American and British complicity.

Oh, this one is just rich. Sure, the US has all these "other clients" in the ME who love us so much that they'd risk their own lives starting a war for us. And those Kuwaitis! What a bunch of troopers they were for picking a fight with a bordering country possessing a vastly superior military - and all to help out their ol' buddy Uncle Sam for some vague political reasons. Bully for them I say!

First off we're not talking about vague political reasons, the US is now a firmly dominant force in the worlds primary oil-well, they a the most powerful military preseance in an area the control of which commands the world economy. The Sheiks lives were never in danger. I reffer again to the reign of the Shah, and other gilded elites that oppress their own people for US interests.

Frankly I can tell you havent even bothered to look into the background, if you had you wouldn't be denying the US wanted a war, you'd be justifying it's reasons for wanting a war.

[problem_child]

Next you'll be saying the intentionaly genocidal sanctions levied on Iraq at American insistance after GW1 were fair and even handed.

[DinoDoc]

This is a weird thread.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Kramerman


which communists or socialists that closed their markets off to us and supported the Soviets did we support? i cant recall any. the only socialists/communists we did support were either allies and or opened their markets to us

Your right, you mainly suported facististic and authoritarian regimes... but not Totalitarian regimes- the difference being that they tend to insist on planned economies, and that's the main thing- Totalitarian is not pro-capitalist, but facists are pro-capitalist. Making them ideal bed-buddies for American interests.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is a weird thread.

[Arrian]

This is gonna morph into another capitalist/commie thread, just you wait.

Problem child is already pushing that line...

-Arrian