 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
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 bullshit explanations... instead of just openly taking what we want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
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
quote:
But we're different from most other empires because we actually find the need to wrap our actions in this warm, fuzzy bullshit explanations... instead of just openly taking what we want. |
the thing is the warm fuzzy explainations often arent bullshit 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
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.
quote:
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
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Last edited by problem_child on 07-08-2003 at 16:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Last edited by problem_child on 07-08-2003 at 19:06
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 22:12
Krammerman (and others, but I just read his post)
|