Pax Americana

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by GePap


BY this definition, the US did not fit the model either, now does it?

Obviously. We broke the mold and gave Latin America a new and better model to follow. The US could easily have become just another monarchy which would have matched the prevailing wisdom of the day for what was needed to constitute a powerful nation.

Yes, I realize there were other republics before the US, however few were powers of the time. The fact that a republic could even defeat a strong central monarchy was a new idea in the world.

The new states were republics, with constitution, governments, so forth and so on. That is the definition of a western model state.

Now, yes. Then, no. Most of Europe was governed by hereditary monarchies.

[GePap]

The model of a state gunkulator has nothing to do with the system of authority within the state: it is the notion of whether the state is soveriegn that matters.

There were republics long beofre the US came into being: the idea of a republic is older than the feudal monarchies of Europe. BUt again, we are talkinmg about the system post Westphalia, one in which the soverignty of a state is recognized as valid by other players in the system. European powers gave the new Americna republics recognition, ergo they were sovereing powers and members with standing in the system, which can not be said of African tribes.

What you have is a definition's issue, looking at somehting so narrowly, well,t hat you miss what matters.

[Dom Pedro II]

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.

Unfortunately, you are one of the few Americans who actually understands this fact.

And the US did fight for capitalism really. They fought for capitalism AT HOME. I mean, its really quite difficult to understand US foreign policy from 1945 to 1991 because we helped set up client states that were in effect Socialist states, but it was ok as long as A) they didn't call themselves Socialist, and B) that they supported us. Which is odd when one ALSO considers the other revolutionary movements that came to us for help and gladly would have accepted a position as one of our allies and yet we turned them away and made them into an even bigger problem.

But I do see it as hypocritical only because we play up so much as being these great heroes only interested in peace and democracy and all that.. and really, thats not true. Nor is there any huge conspiracy... rather there (as there have been in every other government ever on the fac of the earth) people who are willing to violate other people's sovereignty and pad bank accounts on other peoples' bodies. My real complaint, more than anything else, is that Americans can't just admit this...

I mean, its funny... when people are talking local politics, they usually have nothing good to say about the government.... "too much damn taxes!", "long lines at the DMV"... so on and so forth... and then somehow magically when the government is held responsible for doing something to SOMEBODY ELSE'S country, there is this magical rallying behind our glorious leaders... and this isn't just for America, its for any country.

But we're different from most other empires because we actually find the need to wrap our actions in this warm, fuzzy bull**** explanations... instead of just openly taking what we want.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by GePap

European powers gave the new Americna republics recognition, ergo they were sovereing powers and members with standing in the system, which can not be said of African tribes.

But the issue is why Europe would bother recognizing them at all and not consider them just another land area to exploit for colonization. Creating a constitutional republic is meaningless if someone can just come along and wipe you out the next day. America under Monroe Doctrine made it difficult for Europe to act other than how they did in Latin America.

Dom Pedro II
But I do see it as hypocritical only because we play up so much as being these great heroes only interested in peace and democracy and all that.. and really, thats not true. Nor is there any huge conspiracy... rather there (as there have been in every other government ever on the fac of the earth) people who are willing to violate other people's sovereignty and pad bank accounts on other peoples' bodies. My real complaint, more than anything else, is that Americans can't just admit this...

Who's denying it? Obviously America must act in its own interests first. What's the point of granting every human right imaginable to your citizens if a foreign power can just take it all away tomorrow? Cold War politics in particular were survivalist oriented.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yes, but there are so many Americans who will still go on and on about all of our glorious contributions to bettering the rest of the people in the world, and will outright deny or at the very least playdown our support and creation of terrorist groups and dictatorships.

[Arrian]

AMERICA IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. SATAN WAS SPAWNED FROM THE POTOMAC! DEATH TO THE IMPERIALIST PIG DOGS!



Krammerman (and others, but I just read his post)

-Arrian

p.s. Please note that this post does not mean that I sit around watching footage of the most recent war, drinking beer and belting out the Star Spangled Banner, hootin' and hollerin' and having a grand ole time. I was (mildly) opposed to the Iraqi adventure.

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't recall saying America was the root of all evil...

[Arrian]

You didn't.

I've been away for several days. I just read the entire thread, start to finish (with quite a bit of skimming).

-Arrian

[Kramerman]

I mean, its really quite difficult to understand US foreign policy from 1945 to 1991 because we helped set up client states that were in effect Socialist states, but it was ok as long as A) they didn't call themselves Socialist, and B) that they supported us.

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
European socialisms were not only happy to be trading partners, but also military allies (in part because we wanted to protect each other as trading partners) so we were'are cool with such socialists despite being a little off ideoligically

But we're different from most other empires because we actually find the need to wrap our actions in this warm, fuzzy bull**** explanations... instead of just openly taking what we want.

the thing is the warm fuzzy explainations often arent bull**** reasons, they are merely just secondary reasons. Its still misleading to parade around like the warm fuzzy reasons are the primary reason we are doing things, but its just ignorant to accuse the US of being a heartless evil empire thats entirely out for its self interest. we do honestly try to help others - tho rarely do we do this for its own sake, we usually do it when it coincides with our self-interest. but who cares? we get a garunteed supply of oil, they get their freedom back and stability returns to the region (refering to the gulf war). as far as empires go, Id say the US is as benevolent as they come.

[GePap]

Originally posted by gunkulator
But the issue is why Europe would bother recognizing them at all and not consider them just another land area to exploit for colonization. Creating a constitutional republic is meaningless if someone can just come along and wipe you out the next day. America under Monroe Doctrine made it difficult for Europe to act other than how they did in Latin America.

Becuase the people doing it were European decendents educated in European capitals, with European ideas and not pagan savages?

Why didn;t another imperial power besides Britian try to come in and take over the US after the Uk left? Who was defending it?

Until after the civil war, the US did not have the military werewithall to carry out the monroe donctrine, so Latin America owes more to the UK than US in that regard.

[Kramerman]

Until after the civil war, the US did not have the military werewithall to carry out the monroe donctrine, so Latin America owes more to the UK than US in that regard.

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.

for those who say the british could simply have brushed the US aside, unlikely. they could have defeated us, no doubt, but it would not have been a total piece of cake. It would have been even harder for the French, the only other substancial European power of the mid to late 1800s (germany and italy were relatively weak until some time after their unification). The US navy, tho tiny, had very quality frigates with excellent crews, that even taught the great royal navy a thing or two in the war of 1812.
Why did the brittish give up in the war of 1812? because they didnt want to deal with it. sure, had they mobilized fully the US would have been toast. but they had an empire to worry about, they didnt want to deal with us. for this reason the Monroe doctrine was effective from the US declaration, tho i am not denying that it was in britain's interest to enforce the monroe doctrine as well.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kramerman


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
European socialisms were not only happy to be trading partners, but also military allies (in part because we wanted to protect each other as trading partners) so we were'are cool with such socialists despite being a little off ideoligically

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.

[GePap]

The Us coyuld have done nothing about any European attempt at anything south of the Carribean in South America. In fact, S influence in South America was relatively weak up until the end of the 19th century when it displaced Britian as the biggest trading partner and investor.

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.

So again, don;t overestimate the effectiveness of the Monroe Doctrine.

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.

[Kramerman]

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.

what part do you not agree with?

[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"