Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[DuncanK]

I just realized that my last post was short.

I should be clear to say that the America people would not support a war against a nation who took property from one or our companies. However, the government might desire a war if that company had enough power. Then the government would try to create sympathy for that war. The real reason for the war would be the loss of property.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree that almost nobody would be on side if a US president walked in front of the TV cameras and said "They took stuff from rich ******* A, so we've got to bomb the living daylights out of them"...

But there's always a Gulf of Tonkin or USS Maine he can lie about/make up entirely...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
I agree that almost nobody would be on side if a US president walked in front of the TV cameras and said "They took stuff from rich ******* A, so we've got to bomb the living daylights out of them"...

But there's always a Gulf of Tonkin or USS Maine he can lie about/make up entirely...

Yeah, too bad.

[TCO]

I don't think we should go to war over a nationalization, either. (Of course...we should cut off funds to the IMF and places like that too.) This deal may have had more to do with the Cold War than fruit company. And what did we do? Don't remember troops going there.

[KrazyHorse]

CIA planes (I didn't realise the CIA was budgeted stuff like real bombers until I read about this when I was a teenager) went over and bombed the living bejeezus out of Guatemala city and any loyalist army positions they could find. Needless to say, the rebels won...

[DuncanK]

Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

So far almost all cases cited have had more to do with the cold war than with the interests of any single corporation.

Guatamala? What do you think United Fruit cried to Senators and the President? I don't think they said that the girl scouts had just nationalized them. More likely they whispered 'Communist' and got what they wanted. Speaking of cold war reasoning...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by zulu9812
1953? That was ages ago, I hear you cry. Well, let's take a more up to date example of US meddling:

In the early 1990s, Afghanistan was ruled by a pro-soviet state. To get rid of this state, and purely to protect US interests, Britain and the US set about arming and training a fundamental isalmic group known as the Taliban who had agreed to fight Russia and force them out of the middle east. The Taliban's grab for power was succesful, largely thanks to Britain and America. So you'd think Osama (affiliated with the Taliban) would be greatful. Not so, since Saudi Arabia and George Bushi Snr. had prevented Bin Laden from taking out Saddam Hussein, even after American troops had trained Osama for the task. That's right folks, there are no terrorist links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bin Laden hates Saddam. Bin Laden wants Iraq to be an extremeist islamic state, much like Afghanistan. Incidentally, the members of the ruling party before the Taliban (I forget their name), whom America had helped to turf out of power then went on to form the Northern Alliance, whom America just helped back into power. Well done again.

You are horribly, inaccurately, incorrect. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union (remember that happened later on in 89 and 90).

As far as acting purely to protect US interests... I think that the residents of former Warsaw Pact countries would spare a blessing for the policies that freed them from the grasp of the Soviet system. Hell, many of the residents of the former Soviet Union would chime in as a chorus.

The short answer is that the US (and others) acted on the assumption that the Soviets must be foiled at almost any price. Send some Stingers to some muslims on Jihad? No problem. Like Churchill vs the Nazis, anyone who would fight the Soviets were to be supported. Support the Mujahideen? You bet! Were the Taliban the only part of the Mujahideen? Nope. Even if they were, what of it? The US and her allies sought to thwart the most heinous system of government ever known on this planet. They sought allies in dark corners. So what? So former allies are now enemies? Go figure, when has that ever happened before...

I'd much rather be facing the possibility of some random fanatic blowing up a building than some unstable person coming to power in what was the former Soviet Union and 'pushing the button'. How about you?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So far almost all cases cited have had more to do with the cold war than with the interests of any single corporation.

Guatamala? What do you think United Fruit cried to Senators and the President? I don't think they said that the girl scouts had just nationalized them. More likely they whispered 'Communist' and got what they wanted. Speaking of cold war reasoning...

The Cold War categorizes these events, true. I'm not sure what your point is, unless its just that.

[Ramo]

Well, Sagacious Dolphin, taking land from a foreign private company may be within the rights of a sovereign nation; but taking it without paying for it is an act of war against that company and by extension that company's mother nation. In the case of Guatemala, if the facts are as you state them, I think we had the every right to to resist the uncivilized aggression of the government of Guatemala against Americans.

In Guatemala's agrarian reform where the land owned by United Fruit was nationalized and distributed to the landless peasants UF had been screwing over (stealing from in every respect except in terms of legality) for the previous 50 years through controlling the state machinery - killing strikers, and so forth, the owners of UF were offered compensation by the same amount of money they had declared their assets in Guatemala were worth through their tax procedure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DuncanK


The Cold War categorizes these events, true. I'm not sure what your point is, unless its just that.

That is exactly my point. How hard is it for a corporation to paint a nationalising government as communist at the height of the red scare? Not hard, not hard at all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


In Guatemala's agrarian reform where the land owned by United Fruit was nationalized and distributed to the landless peasants UF had been screwing over (stealing from in every respect except in terms of legality) for the previous 50 years through controlling the state machinery - killing strikers, and so forth, the owners of UF were offered compensation by the same amount of money they had declared their assets in Guatemala were worth through their tax procedure.

We overthrew a government over a tax cheater?

Kinda hard to believe. I'll bet the president at the time would listen to requests for aid the same way Clinton did, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

Who was the obviously corrupt president?

[notyoueither]

No. You overthrew a government over bananas, but only to save them from becoming communist bananas.

[KrazyHorse]

What I really want to know is: what about the plantains?

[Dauphin]

Guatemala is the very definition of Banana Republic.