Is the US a warlike country?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by techumseh

The alternative position being that one country shouldn't invade, destablize or overthrow the legitimate government of another country simply because it disagrees with it's political and economic policies? Or that it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to actively oppose such actions by their governments?

That's a valid point but you can't expect one power bloc to follow a certain set of rules while allowing another to do whatever they please.
During the cold war the USSR was an intrinsically hostile power far more adept at political, economic and military subversion. US agencies were playing catchup and reacting throughout. I don't think there's anybody alive who wouldn't concede that some of their actions were mistakes, ill-advised, or just plain unfortunate but it was hardly a case of having 20/20 foresight, and, from their perspective, many of those situations could've or would've become far worse had they sat there doing nothing while the other side acted near at will.
The other side was hardly encumbered by the possibility of their citizens opposing their own moves either. Old Joe & Co. did a good job weaning them out of that particular habit. Or just weaning them out period.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by ravagon


That's a valid point but you can't expect one power bloc to follow a certain set of rules while allowing another to do whatever they please.
During the cold war the USSR was an intrinsically hostile power far more adept at political, economic and military subversion. US agencies were playing catchup and reacting throughout. I don't think there's anybody alive who wouldn't concede that some of their actions were mistakes, ill-advised, or just plain unfortunate but it was hardly a case of having 20/20 foresight, and, from their perspective, many of those situations could've or would've become far worse had they sat there doing nothing while the other side acted near at will.
The other side was hardly encumbered by the possibility of their citizens opposing their own moves either. Old Joe & Co. did a good job weaning them out of that particular habit. Or just weaning them out period.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's absolute by the way. To give the same amount per capita the US would have to pony up 700 million. I'd like to see that happen.

They're up to half that right now without even adding in contributions from the CBG, MEU or the replenishment group. Cances are they'll well exceed it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh
In Indonesia, the CIA gave the Indonesian army the list of leftist political, trade union and student leaders that were rounded up and killed. Now you can claim that the US was blissfully unaware of what would happen when they put these thugs in power, but it lacks a certain credibility, wouldn't you say?

We gave lists 500,000 names long?

Yes, people are guilty of what they have done- certainly the US could forsee a bad outcome for those on lists, but to blame everything on the US is wrong- you know what? SUHARTO COULD HAVE SAID NO. All the money in the world would not have helped the coup occur if no one in indonesia of power would say yes. All the money in the world and we have been unable to catch Osama bin Laden- you know why? Cause 25 million is not enough to make the men he works with turn him in. MOney, lists, all of that goes only so far- conspiracy needs two to work.

Hair splitting.

The turth comes in many shades of grey- its not blakc and white- that kind of black and white thinking is what motivates the very acts you denounce- "its hairsplitting to separate Stalinist pro-soviets from socialists with nationalist tendencies- lets call them all communists and work against them all!"

Your posts seek to rationalize, minimize and trivialize US illegal actions towards other countries. Very liberal.

I grew up with a more leftists education that you- I grew up reading comic books were uncle sam wore a top hat adorned with swastikas- and ask around Poly, but I am defgnitely in the "left"- but one thing I do know is that black and white thinking is the death of reason. And I do NOT minimize or trivialize the actions of the US- I put them in the correct context- the most blame the US can have in such actions is 50%, because without local partners it would never have occured.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ravagon


That's a valid point but you can't expect one power bloc to follow a certain set of rules while allowing another to do whatever they please.
During the cold war the USSR was an intrinsically hostile power far more adept at political, economic and military subversion. US agencies were playing catchup and reacting throughout. I don't think there's anybody alive who wouldn't concede that some of their actions were mistakes, ill-advised, or just plain unfortunate but it was hardly a case of having 20/20 foresight, and, from their perspective, many of those situations could've or would've become far worse had they sat there doing nothing while the other side acted near at will.
The other side was hardly encumbered by the possibility of their citizens opposing their own moves either. Old Joe & Co. did a good job weaning them out of that particular habit. Or just weaning them out period.

What are you talking about? The soviets were terrible- name one single soviet engineeered coup during the whole cold war that succeed based on something other than the fact the Red Army was next door, or happened to be there in the country already?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by ravagon


That's a valid point but you can't expect one power bloc to follow a certain set of rules while allowing another to do whatever they please.
During the cold war the USSR was an intrinsically hostile power far more adept at political, economic and military subversion. US agencies were playing catchup and reacting throughout. I don't think there's anybody alive who wouldn't concede that some of their actions were mistakes, ill-advised, or just plain unfortunate but it was hardly a case of having 20/20 foresight, and, from their perspective, many of those situations could've or would've become far worse had they sat there doing nothing while the other side acted near at will.
The other side was hardly encumbered by the possibility of their citizens opposing their own moves either. Old Joe & Co. did a good job weaning them out of that particular habit. Or just weaning them out period.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the USSR was as hostile and subversive as you say. (not borne out the the evidence, btw) It's been gone a while now. The US hasn't changed it's MO. In fact, it's gotten more aggressive than ever. As for the US simply playing catchup, that just reveals a lack of historical knowledge. The evidence is there, if you want to do the research.

[ravagon]

Who said anything about coup d'etats specifically?
And how on earth can you not think of having the "Red Army conveniently next door' as playing a part in the fight? Active or otherwise?

Where weren't they active in subverting/destabilising?
Central Asia, Iran, Most of the Middle East, Africa (ok, many of these were technically Cuban-based), SE-Asia, .. even Central and South America were subject to Soviet backed insurgents, or became actual Soviet client states.

[Ted Striker]

That's a good point

I think the mistakes of the Cold War can be SOMEWHAT forgiven, HOWEVER, that was 20 years ago and you would think that we would move forward and no longer revisit those kinds of tactics which are clearly counterproductive and immoral.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Funny you should say that given that the scale of the aid is very similar from the two countries.

Sorry. We have adopted 2 countries already. The others will have to get in line.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ravagon


Who said anything about coup d'etats specifically?
And how on earth can you not think of having the "Red Army conveniently next door' as playing a part in the fight? Active or otherwise?

I do not understate this portion- and the thread has been dealing with coups as an example of intervention.

Where weren't they active in subverting/destabilising?

Were wasn't the US? You point was one of effecitveness of that subversion.

Central Asia

Ahem, that was part of the USSR itself.

Iran

They left in 1946- nothing they did afterwards even carries a candle to US and UK actions in 1953.

Most of the Middle East

You mean, unlike the US??? And what was their great success? Keeping Egypt on board? Taking out the Sauds, or Hashemites? Come on.

Africa (ok, many of these were technically Cuban-based)

Yes, the US and the west did nothing in Africa- it was them damned red who got Lumumba (?) killed in The Congo....The soviets got involved in Africa in the 1970's were were mucking around 10 years before they got there.

SE-Asia

Certainly-as we were, and much earlier (Ho Chi Mihn first worked with the US, before he worked with any outside commie powers)

even Central and South America were subject to Soviet backed insurgents, or became actual Soviet client states.

Oh, so the indegenous 1959 Cuban revolution, or the indegenous 1979 Sandinista revolution, they certainly make our coups in Mairnes in haiti for 20 years, in Nicaragua in time to helpSomoiza become a dictator, the working with US corporations anmd rightwingers to overthrow the Arbenz government, going into the Dominican republic in 1964, backing an invasion of Cuba, backing the Contras, so forth and so forth...

My God, its not even a contests on whcih power had the money, resources, and heft to make more mischief worldwide in helping likeminded authoritarians come to power.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by techumseh

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the USSR was as hostile and subversive as you say. (not borne out the the evidence, btw) It's been gone a while now. The US hasn't changed it's MO. In fact, it's gotten more aggressive than ever. As for the US simply playing catchup, that just reveals a lack of historical knowledge. The evidence is there, if you want to do the research.

If you look at the global situation at the end of WW2 and then again prior to 1980, Reagan, Gorbachev and Glasnost I think you'll find the Soviet power bloc had expanded a fair bit.

As for aggressive since the SU crumbled - I'd say the opposite - unless you include Somalia (begun as food aid), periodic deployments to Iraq to protect the no-fly zone (which came to nothing as Iraq always backed down), and Kosovo (after European-based diplomatic efforts failed rather dramatically) then it's only been intervention in Afghanistan (which, lets face it, everybody agreed with) and the latest situation in Iraq (which is the the one everybody and their horse is so riled up about).

Haiti I'll leave alone as I certainly don't know enough to put all of the pieces together, ditto for Venezuela - accusations about US-backed coups do not US-backed coups make.
For a, supposedly aggressive power I'd say that's a lot of restraint. Not to mention the (excessive IMO) military cutbacks since mid-1991.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by GePap


We gave lists 500,000 names long?

Yes, people are guilty of what they have done- certainly the US could forsee a bad outcome for those on lists, but to blame everything on the US is wrong- you know what? SUHARTO COULD HAVE SAID NO. All the money in the world would not have helped the coup occur if no one in indonesia of power would say yes. All the money in the world and we have been unable to catch Osama bin Laden- you know why? Cause 25 million is not enough to make the men he works with turn him in. MOney, lists, all of that goes only so far- conspiracy needs two to work.

Suharto could have said no? That's your answer? There will always be guys like Suharto, especially in third world armies trained by the US. Who finds guys like Suharto or Pinochet? Who contacts them and suggests overthrowing the government? Who trains them and gives them money and sophisticated assistance? Who gives them arms and intelligence? Three guesses.

The turth comes in many shades of grey- its not blakc and white- that kind of black and white thinking is what motivates the very acts you denounce- "its hairsplitting to separate Stalinist pro-soviets from socialists with nationalist tendencies- lets call them all communists and work against them all!"

What is the principle you base your arguments on? Mine is clear: One country shouldn't invade, destablize or overthrow the legitimate government of another country simply because it disagrees with it's political and economic policies. And that it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to actively oppose such actions by their government.

You on the other hand, justify some invasions and reject others, blame neo-cons for everything bad the US does, while overlooking the bad stuff done under liberal regimes, and blame CIA-engineered coups on third world generals who couldn't shoot straight without instructions from Langley.

I grew up with a more leftists education that you- I grew up reading comic books were uncle sam wore a top hat adorned with swastikas- and ask around Poly, but I am defgnitely in the "left"- but one thing I do know is that black and white thinking is the death of reason. And I do NOT minimize or trivialize the actions of the US- I put them in the correct context- the most blame the US can have in such actions is 50%, because without local partners it would never have occured.

You probably did, but how would you know? And who cares? The political problem here is the same problem the US has. There is no real left, at least as far as I can see.

Whereas in Canada, Australia and Europe there is a real democratic left, there is none in the US. Liberals, considered in other countries as centre or even right of centre, pass for the left in the US. And that's why there is no consistent, principled alternative to Bush and the policy of invasion and regime change.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry. We have adopted 2 countries already. The others will have to get in line.

Adopted = blowing the hell out of?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

Central Asia

Ahem, that was part of the USSR itself.

Tell that to the Mujahadeen

Iran

They left in 1946- nothing they did afterwards even carries a candle to US and UK actions in 1953.

They most certainly did not. The Tudeh (sp?) were active right up until the overthrow of the Shah and the religious fervor that followed.
They're survived as an armed group today iirc.

Most of the Middle East

You mean, unlike the US??? And what was their great success? Keeping Egypt on board? Taking out the Sauds, or Hashemites? Come on.

Keeping Egypt?
So when and how exactly did they go from not having Egypt to having and keeping Egypt?
Egypt is the major power in the middle East - population, resources ... it was only US support for Israel that kept the ME from unravelling completely.
Also Syria (client state), Libya (ditto iirc), South Yemen plus a multitude of insurgent groups backed throughout the region.

Africa (ok, many of these were technically Cuban-based)

Yes, the US and the west did nothing in Africa- it was them damned red who got Lumumba (?) killed in The Congo....The soviets got involved in Africa in the 1970's were were mucking around 10 years before they got there.

I think your definition of 'involved' leaves something to be desired.
Nigeria, Angola, Namibia, the ANC - all Soviet backed. All became Sov clients.
And I never argued that the US did nothing in Africa.

SE-Asia

Certainly-as we were, and much earlier (Ho Chi Mihn first worked with the US, before he worked with any outside commie powers)

Indeed. Harassing the IJA. Not relevant to the post WW2 power struggle though. Post WW2 they became the aggressor. Backed, of course, by the SU. The US, again, was reacting.

Oh, so the indegenous 1959 Cuban revolution, or the indegenous 1979 Sandinista revolution, they certainly make our coups in Mairnes in haiti for 20 years, in Nicaragua in time to helpSomoiza become a dictator, the working with US corporations anmd rightwingers to overthrow the Arbenz government, going into the Dominican republic in 1964, backing an invasion of Cuba, backing the Contras, so forth and so forth...

As per above I think your definition of 'indigenous' leaves something to be desired. You don't really believe that all of these came about of their own accord do you?
The SU was far more adept at political chicanery than most give it credit for.

[Edit: stuffed up the flippin quotes]

[Edit2: Actually, following Mr Yeltsin's revelations in the mid-90's about Sov support for Western leftist groups (Anti-nuclear in particular) I could add much of Western Europe/CONUS to the list. Assuming, of course, that Boris hadn't had too much to drink that day]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Adopted = blowing the hell out of?

Seems to work that way.
/me really wants to see The Mouse That Roared