Is the US a warlike country?

[DinoDoc]

Damn. Even the Sava-clone thinks your nuts.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
Oh sh!t, the tin-foil-hat brigade is out.

He's more right than not. The Chilean coup originated in Washington, not Santiago. That we can find locals to go along with our plans does not mitigate our responsibility. At best, you can say the U.S. saw itselfin a crusade and sometimes made colossal mistakes, even criminal, mistakes in its zeal to stamp out the threat of communism. At worst, the U.S. cynically used the bodeyman of communism to push its commercial interests, disregarding the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people around the world. The truth is a combination of both.

[techumseh]

Indonesia:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html

http://www.awitness.org/news/july_2001/cia_blocks_report_indonesia.html

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/freeport-indonesia.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,530478,00.html

Chile:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Chile%20Coup_USHand.html

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

[techumseh]

Here's a report on CIA activies directed towards the overthrow of Allende from the CIA site!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#5

Care to trade hats?

[Ned]

It is notable that both Jackson and Polk were from Tennessee. The people of Tennessee in that era (and even today) and were epitomized by the likes of Daniel Boone. These people were indeed pioneers.

The conscept of "Manifest Destiny" was born in the era of Jackson and Polk. They saw a vigorous and expansive America. The two of them did much to move the borders of America to it current boundaries. Jackson bought Florida from Spain. Polk acquired Texas, New Mexico, Kalifornia and Oregon.

During that era, these men of vision were Democrats and were opposed by the Whigs like Lincoln, the very people who formed the Republican Party. It is true that the Republicans remained largely isolationist, but Teddy Roosevelt was not. Teddy, although born in New York, exhibited all the spirit of his days as a Wyoming rancher.

Teddy was a exception, not the rule for Republicans, and they soon reverted to their isolationist way. It was another Roosevelt, a Democrat, who acted when fascism threatened the world. It was Kennedy who stood tall against Communism. It was Ronald Reagan, a converted Democrat, who vanquished the Evil Empire.

With the rise of McGovern in the Democrat party, that party has largely become isolationist and the "Manifest Destiny" types, known as "neocons" now find a home in the Republican Party. These folks yesterday were liberal Democrats in the Roosevelt-Kennedy mold. Today, they are Republicans. The essence of their world view is that of both Roosevelts, of Kennedy and of Jackson and Polk: America is a force for good in the world and we should be actively involved.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
In your eyes, because you see that being motivated solely by wanting the room service, without motivation to care for the safety of others, is evil. But even you would acknowledge that, if the blind person had NO knowledge of the Big Red Button, or even if it was knowledge of a very, very small possiblity (which is the normal state of things) of the Big Red Button, then the blind person wouldn't be an evil monster. Otherwise, every action, even inaction, would be evil, because we can't be certain of its effects.

Don't tell me that your military has no knowledge of the effect of their weapons. Your example is not really applicable anyway. The choice is not between "room service" and "nuclear holocoast".

It's more like one button has "Kill 10 bad guys and lose 1 American soldier" on it. The other has "Kill 10 bad guys and 10 civilians" on it. Which one do you choose?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Don't tell me that your military has no knowledge of the effect of their weapons. Your example is not really applicable anyway. The choice is not between "room service" and "nuclear holocoast".

It's more like one button has "Kill 10 bad guys and lose 1 American soldier" on it. The other has "Kill 10 bad guys and 10 civilians" on it. Which one do you choose?

I choose to make a new button with larger increments. I'd hate to get carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by VetLegion
You must be kidding? They're warlike and damn proud of it too

[Sikander]

Originally posted by pchang
overwhelming force was not even used for the invasion. supply lines were overstretched and most losses occurred from ambushes of support troops (the tail and not the teeth of the army). if overwhelming force was used, these types of losses would not have occurred.

They might have been minimized, but these were mostly guerilla actions which can happen whatever the force level. The difference is that when you can saturate the area with troops (we didn't have enough troops in our whole military to do so) the guerillas only get one shot before they are destroyed. In the current conflict there were a few instances of resistance that were pretty quickly dealt with in the initial invasion, and then a fairly long lull before the insurgency was able to organize itself.

[Sikander]

Btw, this is the definition of warlike that I think of when someone uses the term, and not the one that Tecumseh subscribes to:


Main Entry: war·like
Pronunciation: 'wor-"lIk
Function: adjective
1 obsolete : ready for war : equipped to fight
2 : fit for, disposed to, or fond of war : BELLICOSE
3 : of, relating to, or useful in war
4 : befitting or characteristic of war or a soldier

From Merriam-Webster: http://www.m-w.com

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


In the end, the man fault for those coups lies with the local elites- no state can out of the blue engineer a coup- yes, the US gave Pinochet help, but in the end of the day, that coup occured because reactionaries in the government wanted it to occur. And yes, the US gave help in the repression....

Which is somewhat like saying that giving a box of matches to a child and not warning the child about the danger of matches and fire does not make you responsible for the inevitable accident.

Nixon's administration engineered the Chilean coup- it spent massive amounts of money fomenting dissent and organizing the breakdown of public services.

Eisenhower's administration actively cooperated with the United Fruit Company, many of whose shareholders, directors and former directors were either in his cabinet or occupying America's seat at theUnited Nations to overthrow the democratically elected government of Arbenz, on the frankly preposterous grounds that Arbenz was pro-Communist.

Same for Venezuela.

Same for Angola, where the C.I.A. lied to Congress about its involvement there.

Kermit Roosevelt helped engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh's government in Iran, thus ensuring that the favourable terms for oil exploitation which had been enjoyed by the Anglo Iranian Oil Co. before Mossadegh's attempted nationalization, after the coup were delivered to American interests.

"I owe my throne to God, my people, my army - and to you."

Shah of Iran to Kermit Roosevelt, perhaps underestimating Kermit's position in the hierarchy of thanks.


The United States has 'created' coups- as did the former Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, and France. That it finds useful allies in entrenched business interests and ethnic minorities in the countries where it chooses to exercise its ability to design geopolitical realities should not come as a surprise- it may have been a relative latecomer at the Metternich game of worldwide divide and conquer, but goodness, didn't it catch up fast.

I would however say that the American people, as a whole are not warlike or warmongerers by nature. It takes a lot of government propaganda and/or media cooperation to turn the sinking of the Maine into a casus belli for the overthrow of the relics of the Spanish Empire and the 'liberation' of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. And even then, sane voices such as Mark Twain's are still around to add their Clytemnestra like warnings to the scene.

The elected and non-elected 'leaders' of the United States are a different matter- it has so often seemed to me that many really repulsive conflicts around the globe have been initiated under the guise of combatting Communism, where that threat was either minimal or non-existent, and this 'reason' was simply the figleaf for the true embarassing reason which was the financial interests of a few.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I really liked your opening post. It describes my attitudes about the US quite well. We are a force for good in the world and have a "duty" not a right to make the world a better place. If we need to use force to remove a barbarian butcher from power, we should. If the forces of fascism are on the march (Saddam for example) we are there to oppose them.

There are, though, people in the US who have always opposed America's use of force. The people generally have been from the Northeast and today find themselves in the Democrat party. The more "aggressive" Americans are sons and daughters of pioneers, the people who long ago moved away from the comforts of the Eastern cities and into the wilderness to extend civilization. These people have self confidence and a vision of the future that is full of hope and optimism. These are the people the rest of the world know as Americans.

Wait.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Which is somewhat like saying that giving a box of matches to a child and not warning the child about the danger of matches and fire does not make you responsible for the inevitable accident.

The South Americans aren't children.

[Whaleboy]

Spiffor, I really liked your opening post. It describes my attitudes about the US quite well. We are a force for good in the world and have a "duty" not a right to make the world a better place.

So tell me, where does this duty, this moral obligation come from? Ah! Lets pluck the seeds of democratic destiny from thin air? It's simply that warlike americans have misplaced faith in their own ideals, have an absurd amount of stubborness and conviction in their own righteousness, to the extent that they would seek to impose themselves abroad.

Democracy and the American way isn't all it's cracked up to be, it's childish to think of it in terms of "good" righting "evil" in the world. Travel more.

[Whaleboy]

Kuci, yes other Western countries are warlike. I don't think it's a particular problem with the USA, although the hyped up events of its history and perceived tradition of "rugged individualism" doesn't help things, not to mention the patriotism . When people are stupid enough to believe that they are right no matter what, it's a recipe for war, disaster and economic collapse.