That the US is an imperial hegemon.

This is not a conspiracy, but anyway....

yes...

Some where already there so it wasn't necessary, but the US still supported them. I will start from WW2. In 1943, the US created an alliance with the authoritarian monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It has maintained its brutality to today. The US supported Zionist creation of Israel in the middle East and then its expansion into Palestine against world order. Following 1967 when Israel launched its aggressive campaign to increase its strength, the US greatly increased military and economic aid. Today it amounts to 3 billion dollars worth. Egypt became an ally of the US in the 70s as Israel had invaded the Sinai but were disastrously knocked back by the Egyptians. So the US gave aid to the Egyptian regime in the form of over a billion in aid which has continued to today (now up to 2 billion), even though it is a police state. Iran was a place of great British authority in the region, much like Iraq. When British interests, associated closely with US oil companies were threatened, the CIA overthrew the democratic nationalist government installing the Shah as a dictator and creating another police state in 1953. Aid to his regime continued until 79 when he was overthrown by popular unrest. In Iraq, the monarchy there established by the British and favored by the US was overthrown by a socialist government that sought to nationalist oil resources, hence endangering great US and British company assets. The US could not allow this and so had the slightly less socialist party - the Ba'ath Party, assisted by the CIA in taking power by force in 1963. Saddam Hussein was later supported in fighting Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war in which the US played off both sides to its own needs (it used Iraq to weaken Iran and Iran to wage a terror war in Nicaragua). In Syria, a right wing authoritarian named Shishakly had been ousted from power, but the US didn't like Syria's neutralism, since it meant they did not want strong relations with the US - neither aid nor open trade. A CIA coup was planned in 1956 but failed to be successful in 1957. It is interesting to note how the country's neutral position was labeled as communist, even though no evidence of that assertion was really present in showing the Syrians were planning to assist future Soviet expansion. Not surprisingly the country never 'went communist' as Eisenhower and Kennedy predicted. What is most amusing is how Kennedy feared communism in Baathist Syria but not Baathist Iraq, probably because one was more loyal than the other for obvious reasons. Thus communism merely meant 'not aligned to the US'.
In Turkey, the US sought to preserve the nation as a satellite ally. The US assisted in regime change in 1980 through the CIA and continued funding to Turkey in order to continue its aggressive establishment of military assets in the region to threaten the USSR (resulting in the Cuban Missile crisis early on). The US even funded Turkey through NATO when it was massacring Kurdish tribes, similar to the same it did with Saddam. Then there was also Afghanistan, which is an interesting example of how the US uses, rather than helps nations. The Carter admin in the 70s devised a plan to create a 'Vietnam-esc' war in which the Soviets would be drawn out of defensive action to fight in the hills of the poverty stricken nation of Afghanistan. Instead of helping the socialist government that was exhibiting serious dislike to the Soviets whilst also bringing about brilliant reform and progress to the people of Afghanistan, the US instead decided to give billions of dollars to religious fanatics "to kill Soviets" and bring down the relatively stable government. They left the country with the Northern Alliance in power bringing extensive horrors to the populace to the point where people wanted the Taliban. The result was an extensively devastated nation, both economically and politically, which would later foster the terrorism the US is now attempting to confront. So to recap, the US installed (or tried) authoritarian regimes in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst it supported the brutal regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It has also allowed for great crimes to be committed in pursuing other of the US interests in Turkey, Lebanon and Israel in Palestine. Today it also supports the dictatorships in Omen and Bahrain. There is not one example of implementation of 'good governance'. Hence to say they are ALL 'mistakes' is just stupidity. Even Israel is a rogue state. It has started more wars in the region than any other country and currently oppresses an entire nation in the form of Palestine.

....?....No, ad hominem s you have made do not aid your argument. In fact they show your inability.

Again I do not hate the US, I hate its foreign policy.

Deny it all you like, you are the one living in ignorance not me.

You jsut shot yourself in the foot now!!! HAHA!! Greece wasn't allied to the Cominform - it was opposed to it;

"After the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the group in June 1948, the seat was moved to Bucharest, Romania. The expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from Cominform for Titoism initiated the Informbiro period in that country's history."
Yugoslavia was the Greeks resistance ally - they weren't allied to the communist thAt you say were the threat! WIN!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform

Ahh, so why wasn't this done in Greece? Perhaps because US interests were not (ie economic control) allowed for then? Obviously, yes.

There isn't democracy in Iraq, well, at least not in any sincere manner. There is rife corruption and danger. The constitution was written by Americans and Bremer's 100 Orders mean the US basically owns the Iraqi economy!

Exactly, hence the US is an empire because it dictates how the world should run.

 

Oh so imperialist control of other nations resources is ok for that reason?

Yes, but they had the Caucuses and their southern neighbors.

Indeed the US seeks to create a world system of economic favoritism to sustain its lead of prosperity as George Kennan describes.

No it hasn't. I have shown you Haiti and Egypt. Go on wikipedia and you will note the same. The only prosperity encountered by nations is that in which they have sovereign authority over their economic plans for development, luckily Japan had this. Korea managed to obtain this later on and once they began a protectionist, capitalist-violating (by way of US ideology) policy in their economics did their standard of living rise.

No it isn't.

LOL Well no. In fact as in Greece you actually get fascist oppression. If you are in the Middle East you get oppression in shape or another with the US.

Why?

Indeed against US policy.

LOL! He did listen - he didn't have to do anything! HAHA! Bush and friends didn't make them do anything!

Indeed you would that's the American imperialist way.

No because people genuinely believe they should be there. The US only wants them there as a means to preserve its own power. It would not allow blockades on Saudi Arabia, even though its human rights record is just as bad if not worse.

They only want nuclear weapons because of the threats from Israel and the US. Remember the US did create a dictatorship there and got Saddam to wage a bloody war with Iran.

You usually dont. In the case of Iraq, Vietnam for example you didn't.

Yes I would. Bush didn't do anything, They just floated the same rhetorical bs about democracy yet went on their merry way without lifting a finger to change anything.

I said according to the standards of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, by 2003, yes.

You don't need mandates you need more bilateral action, like economic blockades and trade barriers, something non-existent for Saudi Arabia.

How was any of this given to the rest of the world through the economic imperialism in Haiti?

No, it is the US' standard. It says it supports democracy yet does the reverse. It says it believe in human rights yet acts in total violation of them., It says it works for justice yet none can be seen.

Not for those under US backed fascism (Greece in point).

Note it is non existent.

I am still waiting for your definitions of control and influence from a dictionary.

 

No, it does not stand for forceful coercion in my book either, but control does.

For it to support your premise, then it does matter. If any other country, within the allied Authorities, are the supporters then, it actually shows nothing of the US intent you use it to show. For example is Australia Imperialistic? Would you suggest the INFLUENCE, Australia is exerting, in East Timor is showing US imperialistic intention?

Since your example has run its coarse.

Unless you can show, how the US control the people, at election time then, NO, you have not shown this at all.

Interesting, that you would consider, they supported the Iraq regime before Saddam Hussein, when they where actually funding a war against Iraq.

LOL so now, you compare the imperialistic control, the British demanded upon one of their colonies, is the same. The fact that they lost, would show that they could not control the US. They had no intention of influencing. The British made the laws and ruled the land. You comparison does not even come close to your premise.

Tell me, how they toppled the ABD AL-KARIM QASIM, as you know it to be. Explain, if you know, how long it actually took to do this. Once you know, please tell me how it shows any form of the control, you think it shows.

You show little knowledge of the actions and reasons here. The fact that, Saddam was a great thorn in the side of the US, his entire time during governance, would also indicate, he was not being controlled. Before you lay claim, that I am incorrect, perhaps you should read up on, what was occurring, before the invasion of Kuwait.

Do you know why he attacked Kuwait? Are you assuming, therefore believing innuendo, that actually does not stand to reason.

Once you know, what occurred above, you will realise, that you are actually using, a poor example of your premise.

Because if you where versed, as well as you claim, on the Middle East. It would increasing become aware, that even those the US support, they actually have no control over. The ones that are supported, are just the better of two evils(as a saying) in the US's opinion. The one gamble, the US hoped would be achieved, by supporting Saddam, was his objections to the re-unification of the Middle East Islamic nations. Saddam had often shown his opposition, but it was not a certain bet, until he came to power. He did, all through his reign, oppose his neighbours to the end.

That does not show imperialistic intent at all. Imperialism is blind to regimes and wish to dominate all.

So what control, has the US shown lately in Japanese government? So what control, has the US shown in the German, Greek, Australian, Russian government lately? and I could go on.

What can I say? Do you seriously believe, the USSR was a good example of your premise. Do you think, the British empire is a good example of your premise? The fact that either question is devoid of good examples, are reason not to answer. I think you know why,

So, no elections then?

 

What do the US do, when they achieve their goals? Afghanistan, should show you. My guess is, that you are saying, that if they wish to maintain their hegemony means, they are imperialistic. that is a different debate.

I am not sure, you understand the quotes and references you are making. I would rather, see your analyses, to what you post, not the opinion and words of people I can not see debate directly.

You can continue to proclaim, I did not read your OP, if you like while ignoring my point. I continue to point out, you show no ongoing control, which you proclaim Instances, are showing ongoing control. You claim, that support and influence is control, however, I point out, this provides choice. The choice may provide more problems, to the regime, that may well be toppled by the US. but it is still there. At this moment, you have not shown any link, of US bases control over foreign governments.

 

So, what does political intervention equal to?

Why not?

Not that I'm aware.

No because we make no gains from it.

How is that the case?

Why control elections (which they did interfere in in Japan and Italy post WW2 as examples, as well Turkey and Iran there were major black-propaganda campaigns) when you can simply control the government?

....?.... I'm not following.

Yes it is the same. Do you think the British were not imperialist?

But they tried did they not?

OMG, so you are seriously saying the British waged a war and governed America not out of self interest or to preserve economic sustenance in its colonial rule but simply 'because it was ruling at the time'???!??? If you really think this, I really feel sorry for you. Ok, better example, Nazi Germany in France. Would you say the Vichi government was free and note imperially controlled as far as the nature of Nazi control goes?

http://www.fantompowa.org/cia_coups_iraq.htm
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=124347531
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

Oh yeah that would certainly explain this

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/post911/shelbysaddamsm.jpg
Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) holding hands with Saddam Hussein in 1990.

Mate you really really need to stop before you further embarrass yourself. A quick Wikipedia read will enlighten you on what I said; Saddam_Hussein

To secure greater defense through resource control in the region.

...?....I think you should read what I said. The US was apathetic about his action in Kuwait. They only acted against him when international opinion became so outspoken.

Not at all. This is a record of the US ambassador giving Saddam the a-ok to attack;
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
Here's a picture;

You are joking?

So who is the House of Saud 'the better of'?

Saddam had often shown his opposition, but it was not a certain bet, until he came to power. He did, all through his reign, oppose his neighbours to the end. That does not show imperialistic intent at all. Imperialism is blind to regimes and wish to dominate all.
Indeed and the US sis dominate.

Not much, since not much is required. Japan has become a well integrated economic nation in the region, and has been loyal to the US for 50 years. The new government (the first new party to enter office in half a century) has posed a threat to US regional interests. I recall this article that outlined the economic dangers of a more independent minded Japan. The bases have been a major issue in domestic politics. I have not kept up to date on the reaction or the actions of the new government, which I would expect wouldn't be much given the harsh toll of the GFC on Japan. Here is the article I mentioned;
What Does Japan’s Political Change Mean for the U.S.?

I don't know about the Russian government (wtf?) but in all the other country bases have remained so as to facilitate the deployment of further military assets for US regional military supremacy. Australia is a good example. They just recently signed an agreement with our government to install further equipment to their space defence program which will undoubtedly further escalate China's militarization in response. In South America, the Obama admin has moved to create several military installations down the continent in the name of 'drug control', being able to then deploy military personal capable of reaching virtually any point of the continent when required.

You could and the answer would be the same.

Answering my questions with questions of your own is not answering them. So I'll state is again;
The same is like saying the satellite states around the USSR were not controlled. Do you believe that?

 

First he was appointed in 1945. In 48 he was elected by one vote majority (left wing parties were forced into a 'boycott'). A year later his opponent, Kim Gu, was assassinated. Then in 52 A coup followed shortly after in the 60s, which was again so authoritarian, Kennedy asked for a return to more open elections, which he narrowly one. Political instability continued until a US backed coup which was not toppled until the early 80s. Anti-American rhetoric during this uprising is quite revealing;Anti-Americanism grows in South Korea

Show me how they were 'short influence'. Rhee in South Korea was in power for 15 years. The following coup(one term later) lasted till 1979. That's hardly short.

They didn't "allow" it to happen at all. There was mass arrests and imprisonment. The protests only worked when it became so out of hand Park had to step down.

This is demonstrated by ongoing intervention. Haiti is also a good example, in fact there are great examples to be found in any region of influence of interest of the US.

Yes they do.

Which nation would that be?

 

They don't have to do much because by that stage they have control.

Well no. Hegemony describes a nation that seeks influence o obtain its goals. The use however exerts direct control as well. This is imperialistic.

Well there are links in the OP.

I think you need to understand that control does not mean constant intervention. It means occasional intervention to maintain a ruling order catering to the US' interests. I noted this in my OP. The US seeks a system by which countries are controlled by elites that favor US interests in the regions it values. Gordon Connell-Smith, in the major study of the Inter-American System published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the 1970s pointed out the fact;
"While paying lip service to the encouragement of representative democracy in Latin America, the United States has a strong interest in just the reverse." The US seeks merely to foster conditions that allow for "private capitalistic enterprise linked to the US".
Do you get this?

It doesn't if elections are affected or, as in most cases, non-existent.

That isn't choice. That's like saying choose between living as a slave or dying as a freeman - that isn't a choice, or at least, not a legitimate one.

Actually I have. Go back and you can see how the US used bases to both launch attacks on other countries and influence elections of vital interest.

 

Many things. If you wish to show that to your premise, then let me put it like this. You need to show ongoing intervention.

Because your premise is imperialistic intention of the US. Not imperialistic intention of US allies.

Really, you should look more into it. They are making complaint now about the interference now.

So they do not control the people? They control the government? Is that not what I pointed out to begin with? Now you say they do not need to?

No, you are claiming that influence in foreign affairs and support for regime changes. Where the British controlled it's colonies entirely. You contend, that the US influence policy, while the British, made the policy. No, I do not contend that they are not imperialistic. I contend they are, you contend the US is the same, but have shown no examples, of the same actions.

Irrelevant, as the US at that time, was considered a part of the British empire.

Is that the bet you have? Word games? You are well aware of what I was saying and by your attempt to degrade the debate, to word games, only stands to show you are not working to hard, at finding the real answer to your premise

So, it is my understanding, that you wish to compare the US to Nazi Germany? Can you provide the example of intent, you indicate, but have not shown yet, to the comparison of the US imperialistic intent?

I ask for your analyses and what do I get links. Do you have an analysis? in your own words Can you relate how the US is imperialistic?

Let me see. By your understanding, other nations should not meet and greet each other, or they are showing their intent? as I asked before do you really know what happened?

Yes it would, but I prefer to study much harder than promote other's ideas. I also like to hear from people, their experience and mine as well. So MATE, I would suggest you study harder, rather than make false assumptions. I would also suggest, you study the nuances of the geopolitical scene, before you post such silly things, as support of opinion that is not actually correct.

No, you forget that Iraq was under embargo at the time, using the oil for wheat trade. It was to secure more avenue for funding. If you had remembered Australia's involvement in that, you would then begin to realise the problem with the example you wish to use.

Actually, this is not the case is it? from you link

Which from your link, he places this into context

So where do you understand that, to be the A-OK to attack Kuwait? It is expected, for the previous twenty years odd, to exclaim that the US has no opinion to the Arab to Arab conflict. However, you and I know this to be untrue. You would claim this supports your opinion.

What, now it is different? I had thought you would stick to the one track and not continue to beat the bush.

So, no ongoing control example? Due to the financial crisis, do you know why the Japanese economy was impacted so harshly, by the GFC?

so you are unaware of the US influence in Russia? I think not.

Who forced them to sign? Seemed funny, that they are allowed to sign, when your premise is that the US controls them. So, what is your objection. The Chinese escalation over US action?

Where is the control? You point to an ability to do so, but not actual control.

The same as what? If you are asking whether I believe, the USSR controlled it's satellite states? Then the answer is yes. If you asking me if I believe, they controlled them with influence and support, as you portray the US is doing? then the answer is no. The USSR controlled by dictating, simple as that.

 

Tell me how the US controlled the elections or the will of the people. OR do you infer that they rigged the elections?

Could you show me where the control was in all these events, you proclaim to be controlled by the US. Sure the US coup is fine, but they did hold elections, so therefore the people had a say as well, unless, you contend the elections are corrupted by the US. This you will need to support with evidence.

Give me your analyses of these examples. Don't just tell me.

why do they?

Your the one making the claim. You need to show me which nations.

 

Yes, they did a great job with Afghanistan, didn't they? Actually your wrong there, they usually just dump the nation, when they have finished.

So, you do use it as a derogatory term. The fact that the US has hegemony over the world is just a fact at this time. You assert they are attempting to obtain that goal? Perhaps, but that is not in dispute. Now you wish to state, that hegemony means imperialistic intent? This can I have doubt. To be an imperialistic hegemony, you need to show not only the fact that the US has hegemony, but is creating an empire. One is a given, other has been lacking.

Yes, and I have read them. I ask you for your analyses of the details, not of opinion pieces that you have posted to me. I do note that you have posted some good links though, I am just not sure you really understand the intent behind them.

oh yes, I do. But if you are trying to now claim that occasional intervention is imperialistic, then no. control is one thing, occasional influence another. But imperialism is a completely different matter. it is the

which is different to what you are now saying

Effected by what? Even your case of South Korea, shows there was elections being held.

If this is true, you have not shown your examples of such claim.

If you would point it out to me I would gladly change my point on that. But a quick look back shows me that you have posted where the bases are, and referred to them as being in areas that can influence( as I said before, you show possibility) but no actual evidence of such. You need to fill the gap.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to contradict you on that last point because I may have misinterpreted your post to me on the bases. I wish to be sure of how I interpreted them as to ascertain the relevance of the posts you refer.

If you prefer not to waste your time, about finding the posts, we can agree to drop the bases, within the debate if you wish. I have no problem with that.

 

mega,
seriously,
this is why your whole argument fails, epically!!!!!

bush and others "asked" mubarik to institute serious political reform within egypt starting in 03, and you replied:

LOL! He did listen - he didn't have to do anything! HAHA! Bush and friends didn't make them do anything!

you cannot have it both ways!!!!

opining about how America IS an empire, then criticizing policy because it isn't?
or
criticizing policy when it doesn't meet that imperial standard that you've read in chomsky, chalmers and apply to every policy decision (and notes from a meeting) makes you part of that vast conspiracy of the fringe that quite frankly should look at developing some other interests....
at least chomsky, chalmers got paid(not alot i presume, another conspiracy?)
you paint red as if the soviets represented some viable benevolent alternative to people during the cold war, as if the oppression of eastern europe wasn't enough....
well it wasn't, it wasn't enough, soviets wanted the ultimate destruction of capitalism, America is that capitalism.....
that's why the cold war, we won, you won, you have freedoms, you enjoy economic opportunity....why? you live in a country whose leaders with foresight, understood what was right and what was wrong, right won!!!
your whole claim, rests on notes from a meeting with truman, notes! notes?
with all the facts, trumans own words, kennan's own words, their policies, the communists own boasting, the communists refusal to disarm, create anarchy and chaos under the guidance of the COMINFORM, in post war greece(where's their culpability?) these facts continue to not resonate because you see ghosts where there isn't....
do some self reflection, maybe write a book espousing your false claims, i'm sure you'll find alot nutjobs to buy it....
let the record show, that you've proven nothing, keep digging!!!!

case closed!!!!

i pass the buck into the capable hands of GARRY!!!!!

 

America isn't an empire. But we are a hegemon.

 

I have. You realize you don't HAVE TO have constant interventions if temporary ones work, right?

Correct. The US establishes ruling elites that cater to its interests in an attempt to keep and maintain their own ruling status. This is an arrangement established by the US, making it imperialistic.

East Timorese are complaining about Australian intervention into criminal activity there? Really? Some source material would be nice.

Controlling the government IS controlling the people, or rather the rulers of the people. The US hates people governing themselves properly and independently.

No, you said the US exerts no force or control, simply influence. You actually admitted defeat by saying they control governments. Thank you.

You don't need to rig elections if the ruling regime has them, and they work out. If however elections are not favorable, intervention may be needed, like in the myriad of examples mentioned before.

To be imperialistic does not mean a stationed, foreign government is required. The British, French and Dutch did not always believe in this either. In the 'Age of Imperialism', it was simply found acceptable to station national forces in a countries government and directly control it. For the US however, foreign policy makers found establishing governments within elite local groups to maintain control. The US has however stationed troops, bases and military assets in said regions to ensure control however where required. Exerting control over domestic affairs entirely for self interest is imperialism. This is what the US has done. It is an imperialistic hegemon no question.

Do you even know why I brought it up? LOL You've obviously forgotten. Let me start again. Was the British exerting imperialistic tendencies in its war with the colonists? Ie it wanted to control the affairs of the Americans to ensure its own empowerment? Was the British government in the colonies imperialistic? Yes or no?

So you agree the British in America were imperialists?

I have made no comparison yet, just a question. Was it not imperialistic for the Nazis to walk into France and create a new government amongst elite social groups in France?
Also, as far as intent is concerned it is slightly different. For the US, it is purely economics, for the Nazis, British and other empires, it was economic, but also social expansion. Past empires saw the exporting of capital, people and culture. America has avoided social imperialism, as opposed to economic imperialism by any means. I have already explained this in my OP and shown you twice.

I am sick of stating the obvious.

Yes, I have done this in the OP! Read it, please. I specifically talked about the middle east as well.

....?.....not at all, I am saying they can interact in any manner, but that the US is an empire for having forcibly controlled other states for its own interests.

Happened where? You realize the US put the Baathists in power and aided Saddam extensively? This was, as I have noted earlier, for control of resources in the mid east, but specific to Saddam to inflict pain on the Iranians.

Which false assumptions?

The middle east doesn't have oil? The US has not created a new form of economic imperialism in Iraq by its action from 2003 onwards? Yes, mate, I am well versed in the character of said specific geopolitical interactions, but most especially the goals of the US in the mid east.

This was happening in the 80s?.........?........

Not at all, and yes I do remember the events you raise. Obviously you have muddled them however. You realize Saddam was in power BEFORE the 90s, right?

Never heard of the Iran-Iraq War eh?

anding his control whilst he catered to US interests.

What kind of example is needed? Japan still keeps a open market compliant with US economic establishment in the region. Or are you saying they have recently closed their markets? As far as I am aware they still own 20% of US public debt.

Well the initial scare of market failure saw the Yen rise dramatically as investors sought a cheaper currency to operate with, This saw manufacturing base take a hit. The financial melt down had the same general effect of severely hindering companies as it did around the world with ties to the US and Europe. Today they are suffering from the relapse of a failed bail out also, seeing China surpass them as second largest economy.

What influence does the US have over Russia? Why would they really want any, let alone be able to?

No one as far as I am aware, I don't recall saying they were forced.

Incorrect. My premise is that the US has an empire. This does not mean every interaction will follow the same route. In the case of Australia the government was quite happy to foster the plan. This plan was kept secret however and only made public recently by wikileaks for obvious reasons.

I don't like escalations in armament stockpiles.

Yes.

This kind of response beckons me to ask you to go back and answer that question about the British in America.

Ok, why do you think the USSR controlled these satellite states?

If you asking me if I believe, they controlled them with influence and support, as you portray the US is doing? then the answer is no.[/QUOTE]
Why is the answer no here?

The USSR controlled by dictating, simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Oh really, and this was different to the US...how?

 

Well, they establish the government and give it support in destroying dissidents, refusing rights of other groups to participate and yes, rig elections where required. Other social factors mean the populace may still follow favorable US allied regimes, but it is still a form of imperialism for the US to support these same regimes crimes that enhance their dominating power for the US' interests.

You realize the US has control by establishing a government that is also, conveniently, democratically elected, right? You are assuming that the US, because of this example, is always supportive of democracy, whereas most other examples show this is not the case. The current protests in the Middle East are testament to this fact.

....?.....In order to me to 'give you my analysis' I actually need to tell you.
Would you like me to start with Haiti? I can but just for your convenience you may like to go here where this specific example was already discussed;
http://www.politicalforum.com/terrorism/135735-us-imperialism-haiti.html
Here's one on Iran I found;
http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/129217-declassied-us-imperialism-iran-1953-1979-a.html

Economic exploitation. This can be found in both examples above.

See my OP. There are roughly 15. Above are two examples. I have provided another three in detail so far.

 

You obviously don't understand sarcasm. US action in Afghanistan helped kill millions of people, which was totally avoidable and unnecessary. Today it is stifled with a miserable economy, completely corrupt regime and a society still plagued by radical, violent groups.

No, they don't. By establishing new ruling regimes they establish also their own economic control.

That's up to you. I think coups, violence, and international, illegitimate means of control are immoral.

I believe it is more than a hegemon, I believe it is imperialistic in nature.

A goal of international economically favorable world order, yes. Oh, btw don't get confused when I say 'world order' with the wackos like Alex Jones. When I say 'world order' I mean it in the general term denoting existing political system of international politics.

No.

So, you say, but Ragu has tapped out so, I dont think so.

Look, I am as much 'unsure' as you in that I would instantly change my mind if information became available to me that showed the interests behind US foreign policy were actually morally upright. Thing is however that there is always an economic interest behind US action that benefits and the US act so hypocritically and immoral one cannot possible conclude their actions are entirely for a moral end. Granted there are players in said events seeking good goals and ends, but overall US foreign policy has been guided and dictated by a desire to ensure world control so as to reap the benefits of an economically favorable system - that meaning, like I said in the OP; conditions that allow for "private capitalistic enterprise linked to the US".

Let me explain the nature of US action by way of interventions. The US seeks to establish ruling regimes and elites that "foster conditions that allow for "private capitalistic enterprise linked to the US"". This means it wants governance in key strategic areas of the world (collectively known once in the post WW2 era as the 'Grand Area') that enforce US interests, those being economic systems that favor the US - and its own elites (however domestic elitism is another story so I'll just say for the US). This has meant that over the years, BEFORE and AFTER the cold war, the US has engaged in military and economic ventures designed to stifle domestic sovereignty. Granted democracy has sometimes reared its head and been incorporated into the rule, but generally speaking US intervention has more often than not been authoritarian, illiberal and quite often undemocratic to boot. Remember that whilst the US has been a petty empire since Monroe it has only become a world empire since WW2. This gives us the time space of about 70 years to study US imperialism. As I showed Ragu, and to which he subsequently had no response or justification and hence left, in the Middle East virtually every form of US intervention has led to what he previously brushed away as "mistakes" - ie support and maintenance of undemocratic, illiberal, authoritarian regimes with brutality in their birth and life. As I explained the OP each section of the world has had its own specific goal, which even then have their own specific conditions for the US policy in detail. For the Middle East it has been corporate safety and resource control. In the US backyard, South America, it has been virtually the same, but also a distinct sense of political command and fear and in such pursuits (this is exemplified by ventures in Guatemala, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Columbia, etc) again in these cases the result is almost always completely contrary to public US policy and supposed ideological aims - of liberal, freedom and justice.

But this does not show US imperialism was lacking. Favorable economic and military (as well as political 'stability' in the form of pro-US relations) remained, hence US imperial goals were solidified.

....?.....Yes I have, South Korea is one of these examples.

What gap is there? These bases provide ability for forced to be deployed where necessary. The Vietnam and Korean War are perhaps the examples you are looking for, as well as the other military ventures listed and which continue to today.

Bases provide a point of power. A base doesn't need to be shooting or fighting to show it is benefiting dubious ventures - it merely needs to exist. But the fact is they do provide points of great violence to other people and are a symbol and presence of US imperialism. In Iraq there are three or four bases planned to be built, with some nearly completed around Baghdad and what not. They are so big they have their own bus routes inside and have been described as scenes off the sets of 1950s movie sets - a place designed to make life so enjoyable its as if the soldiers were living in some American suburb with walls around it. I am sure I mentioned earlier the continuous and multiple rapes on Okinawa by US soldiers, one of the victims was actually an Australian teacher.

Bases are not the be all and end all. I understand where you are coming from. Bases are the footnote of US policy, which i think we can agree on - they do not, in themselves, speak the good or evil of US policy itself.

I must admit, whilst our discussion has been a little slow, I have enjoyed far more than that I have had with Ragu. At least you are willing to discuss the points at hand and stay relevant. I hope we can continue this thread until we reach a good conclusion. Aldo, sorry for the late reply, my computer was busted recently.

 

You be sure to actually point out where now.

When did he do that?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You really have trouble connecting the dots don't you!!!! HHAHAHAHA!! He didn't want change in the country - that's the whole point! Why give a government 2 billion a year if you don't like them!!! LOL! I fell sorry for you if you really are that blind to the obvious. Bush never asked for change because he never wanted any!

Indeed, hence your hypocrisy and ignorance are adorable.

....?....but it is. What policy to Egypt WAS NOT imperialistic? Obama has supported the regime right up until protests became unmanageable by the national army.

LOLAGE. I have read this in far more other writings, which I have also displayed. If you want me to list others, even those of the right wing whose cries against US imperialism have been coming out of their works since the 50s, I would gladly provide. Here's one to start you off, a short article written by a Von Mises libertarian;

The Republic Becomes the Empire

It was written in the early 50s in response to the Korean War.

 

What conspiracy? What is the conspiracy pout forward here in my writing?

What fringe?, or rather which fringe? I can assure you such views are widely held in more or less adherence of opinion.

at least chomsky, chalmers got paid(not alot i presume, another conspiracy?)
got paid? Nice to see you totally avoid my response that tore holes through your last post.

WTF!!! I call them immoral and barabaric and now I support them!?! Good luck to you mate. We can all see you've lost but there is no need to start lying.

Again what oppression? How did the US stop this? You realize the US was the aggressor right? Right from Greece to Iraq it has been the case.

No it isn't. America has never supported capitalism. There has never been a free market, or a US president who has dedicated his policies to actual capitalist philosophy - not even Reagan, in fact ESPECIALLY REAGAN.

THIS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD, but we all know you lost.

Where was the capitalism and the "right action" in these countries? Or do you think authoritarian absolute monarchies catering to virtual mercantilism is 'capitalist freedom now'?

Notes? Whole claim? Not at all. It rests on commentary, record and historical analysis. If you want more quotes, like LBJ telling the Greek Ambassador to get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, then I would be happy to oblige.

When did they refuse to disarm? LOL You really don't know much. As I indicated earlier it was firstly Khrushchev that called for armaments restraints but which Kennedy did'nt want to hear about. Don't forget the Cuban missile crisis happened due to American missiles being placed in Turkey - again American aggression.

What anarchy? Where? Do you even know the definition of the world? You realize Soviet totalitarianism and Greek grass roots resistance groups are not only totally different they both have nothing to do with anarchy, right?

Who was guided by the COMINFORM? The Greeks certainly weren't.

I am still waiting for you to prove ANY of this in regards to Greece. You realize just because you say so, it doesn't make it so right? You also realize, by your OWN SOURCES, the Greek resistance movement had very little, in fact nothing directly to do with the COMINFORM - AND THIS IS YOUR OWN SOURCES SAYING THIS!

What ghosts?

Nice irrelevant insult. Nice to see you are still failing.

WIN!!!! BOO YEAH! Megadethfan FTW!

Yeah, right. I have proven you wrong through and through. At least Garry has the balls to stay on topic, focused and expand the discussion at hand.

I, honestly was surprised you lasted this long Ragu. I wasn't surprised however that you went totally off topic and discussed the Soviet Union rather than the US. I responded to your question about regional control in the middle east and yet you ran away from it like a child. I proved you wrong there easily. On Greece as well, your own sources proved my case and solidified my points, nullifying your misconceptions.
You display your clear childish inability by resorting to rants of "right vs wrong" instead of actually addressing the topic. On that point you failing even to define, by yourself, the difference between control and influence.

I think this part of my reply to your post was the annunciation of your defeat;

Your failure has been duly noted.

 

How is the US a hegemon but not an empire? Could you expand on your assertion?

 

Yes, I do. Do you realise you have to show constant control of independent governments to show imperialistic intent. You do realise that you must show control of puppet governments.

Do you realise that you must show how the temporary interventions continue to work? Before you answer these things we need to address a comment you have made further in the posts.

This would explain the why you consider the British empire is a good example. The problem is that you are asserting that the US is using influence to have governments placed into power in other countries that are sympathetic to US wishes. This is true to a certain extent, However, the difference you do not seem to understand with your examples is that the British government ruled the empire and for a very long time, did not allow self governing of it’s colonies. The Empire made the laws, the rules and policed them. They placed their own people in charge of the colonies ( that is British, not a selected person who, maybe sympathetic to the British). Big difference there, making that example Irrelevant to your premise. If you continue to use examples of empires to support a premise of imperialistic intent that does not control in the same manner, you will loose any debate upon that premise.

Really, you do not know that? Maybe you should watch, a little more news, in your own country. However, they are not only complaining about Australian intervention into criminal activity, they are complaining about Australia’s intervention in politics and influence into policy. However, that is another debate. I will provide a link or two, when I came across them again, but my time is limited at present, so we can either look at that as unfounded or drop it until later discussion.( I will most likely PM it as I am sure it will take me a couple days to retrieve)

This is only correct in an authoritarian regime, within a democratic regime it is very incorrect. Given you have show the US has supported authoritarian regimes, this would only be a half truth.

Actually, I am not saying they control anything and by your assumption I did, is misleading at least. I stated, you have shown that they influence government. When you state, they control the people, I pointedly stated you showed no such thing. I stated you claim they control the government.

So in your capacity, could you tell me when, the US intervened after an election that did not favour the desires of the US?

Really, when did the British empire instil the foreign governance before the Monique was forced to stand aside and allow the British parliament to rule the empire. This allowed the colonies to become self governed. This however has still held a head of state as the Monique to this day.

Here we will never agree until you can show the controlling influence these bases have exerted. The fact, the US influences domestic policy is not in question. Your interpretation of the influence, is they control. You have referred to Wikileaks as a good source to your premise, However, if you read through the cables it becomes increasing apparent that the US does not wish to rule, govern or control any country. Yes they do wish to have US friendly government, yes they would like US trading advantage and yes they use the fact they have hegemony over the world to influence such out comes, not to retain their hegemony, but their own standard of living. Is this not what every other country wish to do? The fact that the US has the upper hand in this, no way shows the imperialistic intent of the US.

Perhaps you forget what I answered. Yes the British was imperialistic and yes they wish to retain this imperialistic intent. I guess that was because they where an empire. (just a guess ,though)

Should I answer that again and again, until you realise the difference, of what you wish to expound, as a good example?

So, that is what they did. I must go back to school as I thought they where running that country themselves. I guess we did not know about the self governance of the French government during the Nazi occupation.

IF you wish to change your premise to mean ‘The US has economic imperialism ’ then maybe we can agree. But that is not the premise, so as I say attempting to compare, an empire that ruled over it’s colonies and governed them from the head of state, is like the US, then you fail. As you have not shown them to act in, even near, that manner.

you suggest, meeting these people show control. So if the US meets any other country head of state it shows control, or moralistic intent. If any other head of a country meets with another head of state it is not imperialistic intent. In other words IYO their dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. This, then, is a poor example of your premise and should not have been touted as anything, but a meeting of heads of state?

 

Why, yes I do realise they supported the Baathists into power. I also realise that it was through elections. So unless it was a corrupted election, that can be shown and not just speculated , I would assume that money, not control won the election. You do realise that the US was not pleased to have Saddam in power? You do realise that Saddam was the better option of the parties involved? You do realise that it was the third candidate (of who’s name I can not recall now) was the real preferred leader of the US? You do realise that it was decided that providing support for the preferred candidate was moved to Saddam because It was realised that support of best option for the US would not win the elections?

So far the imperialistic intent in the ME was not exactly as cut and dry as you would paint the picture.

There you go again with your misleading comments. The comment was directed at you assumption that Rumsfeld was meeting his underling in Saddam, is showing their control over Saddam. As I stated to that do you really know what happened? Do you really know, Saddam considered that meeting, as an insult to his country. Stop belittling the debate with misrepresentation please.

Yes. I do and no I have not muddled them.

Yes, however do you actually know how many wars you are talking about? Just further in that, do you understand that the comment you tout as giving permission was considered a standard answer by the US diplomates when discussing anything with Arab nations? Or don’t you understand that.

That is interesting theory considering Saddam was a thorn in the US’s side from the onset. Relations where strained but at first the US invested heavily in the hope of better relation for the future. This however did not come.

Yes, so compliant to the US market, that they own part of it. So you would assume that anybody with an open market is conforming to US control? Or was that just a silly comment?

Well you would be very close but the last part was the real reason for the great impact during the crisis. It is not a result of the crisis.

What you are unaware of the money the US flooded into the Russian economy to add transition of regimes? You are unaware of the aid the US had provided to the Russian government? You are unaware of the US loans to the Russian government? And I thought you would through that at me as showing of how they wish to control the Russians since the fall of their regime.

Yes, for obvious reasons. But why did they close their base to begin with of they can control as you would suggest? Oh, you are aware that the US had a base in Australia aren’t you?

So because you do not like stockpiles it is a show of imperialism?

They liked their neighbours? Really again as you can not see they controlled completely different to your premise of what the US is doing so not a good example. But just so you do not get your nose out of joint for not answering, to maintain the power of the resources and people needed to achieve desired ambitions.

Because the US was not self governing as you would suggest they where. They fought a battle to achieve that or did you not know that.

Read above

Now on etiquette, I wish to say, I am very sorry, I have not my best foot forward, at this time. My time has been taken up with my obligations at this time.

If I have been rude or impulsive, please forgive, I will attempt to straighten myself out a little, before further response. Please, accept my apologise for tardiness. I will return, with further response, to remainder, at later date.

 

Yes, and not only the very nature of establishment of such regimes, but also ongoing US support, assistance and intervention consolidate this point.

This is self explanatory - a new regime means the status quo of power and pro-US policy is maintained.

alright....

I never said nor attempted to show the US and Britain were the same in their structural policies. In fact I said they were different. Ideologically they share many many similarities - both speak about invading and occupying other countries as a humanitarian and selfless venture. But structurally the US has taken more economically viable route, one not original or unique, but different to the manner of colonialism under the British Empire, which I already said was very different for a number of reasons, particularly movement of its own population and colonization of other lands.

Yes that is the difference, but it doesn't make them irrelevant. Ideologically they share many 'values'. My note of the British was in response to your, what appeared to be, incapability of identifying the difference between control and 'influence', which you still have to do.

Indeed but the example was not designed to be economically or structurally comparable, rather ideologically and in terms of what constitutes 'influence' over 'control'.

Sounds like an interesting topic. You should take your time and make a thread entirely on the subject here; http://www.politicalforum.com/australia/

Not at all. A regime, well I guess it depends on your definition, can be midly democratic as well as authoritarian - like say Egypt or Iran. They 'democracy' per say but are incredibly controlling of this process. The examples I have sighted are almost always the same. Granted if all the states in question had democratic functions that were allowed to operate independently without influence I would not hold the position I do. Problem is the majority are not democracies within the parameters of US intervention. In the case of Korean elections, extensive political repression existed within their 'democratic' system. Rhee only kept his job by retaining an executive position. Half of the major political parties were barred from participation, whilst there was much propaganda and political repression as I mentioned earlier. Under Rhee's rule over 100,000 people (South Koreans) were killed in politically motivated crimes - all with US support.

I would agree with your premise if it were the case. The thing is the overwhelming majority of US action leads to undemocratic, hence (for lack of a better word) un-autonomous countries. The example of the Middle East that I gave in response to Ragu is a prime example that you should read - it is a post or two above this one.

Can you give a criteria, specifically a definitive explanation between the difference of 'influence' and 'control', since I'm quite sure regime change is control.

You realize the government rules the people and thus by controlling it you control a country and hence the people? Imperialism doesn't need to go that far. US control has functioned so that ruling elites are placed into power, that cater and maintain US interests in a bid to retain there own domestically. This trend has been quite common (like as I said Viche government in France) within many past empires.

 

There are many many many examples. A good one, since it is quite recent, would be the ousting of Aristide from Haiti to make way for massive profit making by US agribusiness. He was returned once he signed US crafted legislation allowing for harsh neo-liberal reforms which severally constrained growth of social reform (ie democracy) and greatly diminished the standard of living at the same time, destroying local rice industry to the point of compelte destruction.

"Monique"? What is this in regards to? Do you want an example of British imperialism correlative of American power today?

Actually it does become apparent they want control - specifically, as I have stated, to bolster their power. The Wikileaks showed a severe hatred of democratic institutions of US allies by American government officials.

That's the same thing - although its not so much a 'standard of living' as 'economic favoritism'.

Yes, but only the US utilizes armed, illegal and immoral action and process to secure such aims, and not just for self preservation, but also for profit.

Indeed, an 'upper hand' would not imply this - everything else does.

So you agree, the British sent forces to the Americas to retain control, yes? Why then is it when the US does it, you brush it aside?

See above - it wasn't meant to be a "good example" of US imperialism - it was an attempt to get you to understand the nature of US interventionism.

.....?..... Vichy government;

"Government of France that allied with the axis for industrial purposes from July 1940 to August 1944...Marshal Philippe Pétain proclaimed the government following the military defeat of France by Germany during World War II and the vote by the National Assembly on 10 July 1940. This vote granted extraordinary powers to Pétain, the last Président du Conseil (Prime Minister) of the Third Republic, who then took the additional title Chef de l'État Français ("Chief of the French State"). Pétain headed the reactionary program of the so-called "Révolution nationale", aimed at "regenerating the nation."" Notice how the government is French. Of course, the German army retained overall power through military occupation (ie final say), but a domestic regime still existed. This is no different, to say the US in the Dominican Republic in 1916 and again in 1965 (this was also after "bad" elections; a free and open one).

Yes, you should go back to school - your words, not mine.

That is its primary goal - but it does so through control domestic affairs where necessary; this is imperialism.

That was not comparison. I have never made such a comparison. The US control form the head down not directly, but through manipulative control of states and regimes, whom rely on the US to maintain their own tyranny and where required are destroyed to preserve US interests.

I have, many times. If you look above you can see I mentioned Haiti and Dominican Republic as two example sin this post alone.

No I suggest putting them into power and or giving them arms, supplies and supporting their brutality shows control. It is the same thing the British did - reconstruct government to suit them, the only difference is the structure of the governments created.

No, I never said this.

It shows intent of something, yeah sure, but not necessarily imperialistic intent - this is found else where.

Indeed it never is in and of itself - including between the US and others. Evidence for imperialism is found else where.

No, you have totally twisted what I said. Please, don't make straw-man arguments that are totally irrelevant. Money, assistance to repression and regime change ARE NOT simple "meeting up".

Which example? I think I have explained myself above quite extensively.

 

Please bare with me here. You have posted your reply to my previous and this may seem to be jumping back within the debate. If you have an issue with these following posts please let me know and we can decide what has been covered. Again I apologise for any inconvenience I have made or you.

Are you discussing the state of Afghanistan since the US invasion of the country or are you talking about the US supporting the rebels against the USSR? If you commenting on the later, then, you have to preclude that your understanding of actions after the USSR with drawing from Afghanistan was to basically leave the country to its own means. This after it suffered a major war leaving the country in demoralised state allowed the persuasion of radical groups to control the county. Even during the period of rebuilding the influence of radical groups was forcing the Afghanistan regime to request support from many countries (Australia included) that was ignored by Western societies. This help to propagate the hate of the US. The US could have very easily controlled or influenced the population as they where seen as one of the countries that saved them from the oppression of the USSR. However, due to the policy of simply ignoring them after the war, even though the country was decimated allowed the mounting hatred of the US. As I pointed out before, this actually shows that imperialistic intent of the US did not exist. Do you suggest that Afghanistan has nothing to offer the US? As many would claim that war is only about oil as well. The fact that the US has invaded them now, does not show imperialistic intent. The fact that Afghanistan governance had ignored the US for years about removing the radical elements of their governance, without intervention, shows not to your imperialistic intent.

Let me get this straight. They are the leading economy in the world at present,(this is changing though) the richest and the standard that is considered world wide to attempt to achieve. So if they influence, establish or even rule another country, it is establishing economic control? No matter what the leading economic does they are establish economic control, is your understanding?

Would it be more reasonable to understand, that all economies, wish to have that mantel, to which the only way of dominating is to either have some control (ownership is one way ) or dealings with, to either further their own economy or to minimalism the powerful economy?

Whether or not it is moral, good, evil or just down right nasty is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Yes that is your premise, which you have not shown me, in my belief.
What I believe is, they are attempting retain stability, within their own country. The US understands, that to achieve this, they need to also achieve, a friendlier outcome, on the geopolitical scene. They understand that, they can not just ignore threats, from other nations and must stand ready to defend their right to exist, in this world. The fact that, they have bases strategically placed around the world, with different objectives, is irrelevant to their intention to influence anybody, as they place these bases as close as they can to a possible enemy, for swift and precise reaction to threat to their own nation. The only real influence, of these bases, I know of ( that you have not shown) is the intention to have them remain in these strategic locations. Their intent, of setting better governance for themselves, is usually an attempt to insure security of themselves. The fact that they influence and perused regimes to work with the US, in many ways could be construed as control, however the fact, that many times this influence does not have the result wished by the US is a demonstration, of the fact, they do not have the control you assert they have.

What, wishing to have the rest of the world to have similar economic movement allows ease of trade. This does not show intent of imperialism unless you are using control to have the economy only trade with your own. The US has influenced many economies and will continue to do so but it is obvious they do not control them. Some thing you may or may not be aware of is how much the ME control the US economy, which is the reverse of what you attempt to say about the US.

Between you and me the ME was a major factor in the GFC with it’s ability to control the price of oil. As you would be well aware of the claiming price of crude oil before the GFC ( I am sure I do not have to tell you why). Was a major complaint of the US to the Opec countries. The threat of the US to drill and relieve the supply issues, was the influence used to restore some stability to the price of crude. The Opec countries blamed the speculation on the market for the price hikes. This would be a half truth again as the speculation was always there, it only became more prevalent when the oil price began to rise. Great control there from the US as the price remained high and the threat was fairly hollow as they could only influence the price of crude for a temporary period.

No, Ragu realised that he does not have to prove your premise incorrect. That fact that he did not show this does not mean you achieved your goal, it simply means you have stated your premise. If he resigned because you had shown your premise, I am sure, he would have stated some small resignation to some part of your point, such as ’it may seem that way but I do not think so”, however he did not.

hold the horses, I do not say they are morally right, correct or even just plain, doing the right thing. That is irrelevant to the issue. If you wish to seek a debate on the morals of US foreign policy I am sure you will get few who will argue with you but that is a separate issue.

I do not agree. It is not the desire to ensure global dominance at all, only desire to retain the standard of living, security of not being dominated by Authoritarian governments and safety of their people. I have no doubt that it would appear to wish to remain the greatest nation (in their opinion) but it is merely a fine difference. The problem you have is that, while this give impression of imperialism it is not demonstrated by actions. You have shown (as I say) moments in time, one of which you state lasted 15years, however in the scheme of things you need to show continued control. This does not mean daily or even monthly but ongoing control. South Korea is a good example of US action but not ongoing intent (to which you have to show) as they do not control the country at this point.

So what is the link? Is it owned by the US? Is it trading with the US?

 

So what is the link? Is it owned by the US? Is it trading with the US? This would indicate the wish of ‘private capitalistic enterprises’ to gain from these enterprises to capitalise on repressed labour force. This is not imperialistic intent as this action usually will build that country to a point that these ’private capitalistic enterprises’ move on and dump that nation, without a second thought. This has occurred around world, for many years, and many who oppose the global economy have this as their main focus. For this action to stand for your premise you need to show that the US is controlling the economy to hold the oppression of the workers of that economy. Need would be to show the US influences the corrupt regimes to continue to remain corrupt. This you have not.

First the Hypocracy of the US with it’s outwardly foreign policy to it’s internal foreign policy is not in question here. It is obvious to me that your premise may well be driven by your dislike of US hypocracy. This however is something I can not debate with you as it is obvious to the world it exists. Even honest Americans will not argue with you as you constantly see on this board they proclaim the same. But that is not what your premise is about.

The problem with your ideal of supporting authoritarian and even oppressive regimes is, that while they have much influence around the world, they do not control the world. As I pointed out before, the US supports the best option (yes for them) of a regime. This, often is not entirely in the best interest of the US, but it is in a better interest of the US, rather the alternative. All US intervention, in the ME have proven to be mistakes of the US. That is a given, but why is it? This is because that although the US supports these regimes, it is most often with the desire of that party to act in good faith, of providing elections and movement toward democracy or something closer to a less oppressive governance. The mistake has been, that not one of the regimes supported by the US held it’s word and proceeded down the road, that we see them in now. Once the regimes gain power, they quickly became aware, of the thing you do not grasp, that they have the power over the US, rather than the US controlling them. This meant, the US would be floundering to attempt to inject better options into governance, without little success.
Many of these nations would simply ban elections, once it become aware, that the support from the US was not forthcoming. This is demonstrated, when the US demands other nations to have elections and they ignore the US. Saddam only held elections after it became very apparent, that he had pushed NATO and the US too hard. Many may claim, that these elections where corrupted, and this may well be true. However, after many years of embargos and development of hate to the US, it is very possible that Saddam would have won, just to spite the US. (that last bit is speculation after witnessing the peoples exacerbation)

Their goals where solidified? The problem is that there is not solidified as it is very obvious their economy is owned b other nations you contend they control. Due to the fact the US is the largest buyer of many resources it becomes apparent that the US would wish to have easier access to these resources (akin to many other nations) it is necessary to have good relations and equivalent economic conditions or an ability to have purposeful trading conditions. As they have he richest economy in the world at present means that nations who wish to deal with them need to manoeuvre to a US friendly economy. You constantly refer to the Japanese as being controlled by the US. Here we can show the opposite as the Japanese dictate to their trading partners (all of them) what they wish. If you had any dealings with Japanese business you become extremely aware of the fact that they dominate and control their dealings with every one. Which again show the opposite of your premise.

The gape is, as said before, from ability or possibility, to actions of control. The wars you refer to is the movement to stop the advancement of communism. These show no intent of control, in fact they show more an intent to end the control of another. The fact as to what happened after may be construed as controlling (that I have no doubt) they do not show intent to continued control.

So if a US worker works in Australia, he is showing Imperialistic intent because he is there? The problem is that you are assigning meanings into things that are not there. US bases could be construed to show power no doubt. And when things get a little tough I am sure that is the intention. But it is not to force the nation they are in to follow the doctorate of the US. The US does not build bases within enemy nations for the obvious reason. They build bases strategically around the world to show their enemy that they can reach out and smite them very quickly. If these means in your opinion that they call everyone their enemy, you would be sadly mistaken. That being said I am sure we do not need to explain the bases in Iraq.

To the victims of criminal activity, so you would consider the criminal activity of the few as a conspiracy of the US to control nations. That is just sick, I would expect you can provide evidence that these perpetrators where influenced or controlled by US regime to commit these acts. As you can not I would expect you would refrain from this type of conspiracy theories.

I think we can agree on that. As I think we can agree that US policy is not necessarily good or evil. That depends entirely on your perspective, in other words it is subjective.

 

This is very subjective( the support for crimes, that is) however the establishment of governments and rigging of elections, while I can very much agree of these things occurring the problem is that much of the time they have supported existing regimes and opponents depending upon the better option. This does not necessarily show imperialistic intent.

That is conundrum, they installed a government through elections. However, I do understand what you wish to indicate.

The ME currently show your premise? It would seem the current desire is for democracy or is it? The real issue in the ME is who is controlling what. I think before you entertain the issues of the ME in this debate you need to look very deeply into what is happening. You will need to go past the popular media.

Back to etiquette, Just in case you are wondering, yes, I did formulate these responses over a time, during breaks. I will attempt to be faster with reply but I again, not an excuse, just a fact, my obligations are heavy at this time.