Thread: That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Oh today? Well it is also interesting to note the actual intent there also. The Bush government sent less soldiers to Afghanistan to capture bin Laden then there are police on Manhattan island! Not only this but they sent them two months after the attacks! Once there, the US proceeded to invade Iraq with no justification.

This supports your premise, how?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I still feel like you didn't read or didn't see these so I'll repost them;

I have read your examples. Let me explain, why I feel it does not show continued control.

First, we need to realise that influence is not control. Do we agree on that?
Second, we need to understand that, continued control, would ascertain, ongoing interference with the rule of nations. Do you agree with that?

Regardless of whether or not you agree, from your reposted

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Look at South Korea.
There the US oversaw the institution of Syngman Rhee, a complete authoritarian, whose rule saw deaths of over 100,000 people 'suspected' of being communists, but were actually anyone who opposed his US backed regime. These deaths are even estimated to have been as high as 200,000.

So this assertion is, that Rhee followed demands of the US, because they instilled him to power. Not a hard conclusion and could very well be accurate.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Before 1950, he began to institute such measures - ie before the North invaded, and thus US knew full well what was going on.

Again no argument. But would indicate more of inaction of contention of control, more than control itself

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

A good example is Rhee's appointment of Kim Chang-ryong, an ex-Japanese soldier as his rightly hand man and security chief - who over saw the internal gestapo policies I just described.

So did the US demand his appointment? no evidence their of ongoing control it is just a fact that oppression was occurring, in the knowledge of the US.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

(Note when local resistance saw Rhee resign in 1960, the US supported General Park Chung-hee's military coup which saw an even more brutal regime come to power).

This is what kills your continued control argument. Support is not control. the military coup was, for the US, better than the regime of the time. Thus, the situation was not in US control at all, for them to support the deposing of the regime of the time. The fact that, the alternative in the eyes of the US, was better.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Also look, at Japan.
The US made extensive efforts to curb democracy, by hunting down dissident groups and spreading propaganda. To see declassified US documents and scholarly reviews of such information see Mario Del Pero, Diplomatic History, 2004. See ch 1, note 66.
In the post war environment Noam Chomsky also notes amongst US diplomatic cables and more of Kennan's writing that "Washington intended to provide Japan with "some sort of empire toward the south", in George Kennan's phrase, something like the New World Order [that the Japanese sought to create in the 30s] but within US-dominated global system, and therefore acceptable." "
See page 120 Failed States.

This entire example is subjective. But you have to look at the last 30 years to note ongoing control.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Also I showed how the US reinstalled fascists in Greece, since Ragu was most interested in that country.

Yes, you did. However, you have not shown ongoing intent, to control the country.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

The words of President Johnson to the Greece Ambassador were quite interesting when he believed US policy was against Greece's liberties; "Listen to me Mr. Ambassador, fuc k you Parliament and your constitution...If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long." And indeed they didn't, with the first neo-fascist regime in Europe installed under the CIA in 1967.

Watch this for a very quick but concise summary;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqb1cdfZ5U

Yes, I see the US have many times interfered in foreign matters. However, where is the ongoing control, you continue to contend. Bases in other countries, do not indicate control. If you can show me the fact, these bases have used controlling measures, then, we can agree with your premise. The fact that influence in the political scenes of foreign nations, also does not show control. As it allows. the foreign government the option not to listen to influence. If you have a choice, your not being controlled.

You are picking moments of times, when the US did make foreign nations implement their wishes. This, I agree with. You have not shown, with any of your examples, the ongoing control of these nations. That is what you need to address.

As I say, I am interested in the evolvement of the debate, rather than situations. I have an open mind to both your and you opponents stance. I just feel you have not shown your assertion of imperialistic intent. don't get me wrong, your opponent has not shown the opposite either. However, he does not have to, as it is you who made the assertion.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Because whether they are justified or not has no bearing on whether they are imperialistic or not.

post wwII pitted the US against the soviet union, whose aim, through expansion was the destruction of capitalism, may i suggest the readings of marx, lenin and stalin...

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Hence imperialistic. Thanks for agreeing with me.

restated; the policy of the US post wwII has been to contain the spread of communism!
why?
self-preservation!!!
prior to wwII, US policy was primarily neutral, through a series of neutraltity acts, the world pressed into war without US intervention, post war policy is totally different!!!
aggressive nations, especially ones with imperialist design i.e. USSR will NOT be appeased.....
was this policy in the interest of the US, absolutely!!!!
did the US influence areas under "pressure" from communist expansion, absolutely!!!
kennan, marshall, truman understood what the pre-war appeasement gave the world, they were driven to combat the spread of the aggressor!!!!
they did, geniuses!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Well then I've won.

the US won the Cold War, and the world, aussies included have greatly benefitted from our cold war reluctance to appease communist aggression, we accept your thanks!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

We are here to discuss whether the US is imperialistic or not. Not whether we think it is good or not, or whether you think that has 'negative connotations'.

we are here to dispel the urge that you hanker to criticize US policy for being victorious in our war against communist aggression.....
once again i'll ask the same question for the 12th time;
would the world be better off if the USSR won the cold war?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Which is what America planned to do since WW2, I thought we agreed on that? You even said it was 'to defend against the USSR' - that still proves my point! They wanted to control the world where they deemed necessary - that is imperialism.

we are not imperialistic, for the umpteenth time, the US doesn't directly control any area outside our recognized areas of sovereignty.....
were we influential, absolutely, influence, even powerful influence, doesn't remotely infer imperialism.....
did we influence directly and through proxy, absolutely....
did we control.....NOT, if we controlled anything....why then would the soviets sanction north korea's invasion into the south?
the united nations responded to that NK aggression...was the world wrong?
why didn't the US encourage west german invasion into the east?
because it was recognized that east germany WAS DIRECTLY controlled by the soviets.....
the US policy was a response to soviet aggression....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

And we have agreed that the US has exercised political, military and economic domination over countries to further its goals. Or do you disagree?

influence yes...to further our goals yes.....and your goals, and all free peoples goals....you see, our interests are the interests of people who strive for economic, political and social freedoms, granted messy at times, but ultimately that's what happened in greece, SK, and japan, all your talking points....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yes, as you keep saying and I keep agreeing - the US has spread it control over the world. The only point we disagree on is why, which is ultimately irrelevant to the question of the thread.

it is not totally irrelevant....
this mano e mano is the result of your continued negative postings concerning US policy, when i asked you if the world would of been better if the USSR was the only superpower, you continue to avoid the question, that in and of itself is the issue.....
the US did the world and you a service defeating the USSR, was that policy self-effacing, of course it was, but every free person within this world benefitted!!!!
except of course if you still live in repressive governments like iran, north korea also enemies of the US!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Again, whether it is justified or not is not relevant - we are discussing whether they are imperialistic or not.

not imperialistic!!!!
rome, carthage, persia, alexander, ottomans, britain(sorry sore subject) those were empires!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

How? Where did, in my OP, did I mention 'justification'?

i've rewritten your statement 10 times already, you read it....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I agree, the US and USSR were both evil hegemons expanding their power.
Totally irrelevant to this thread.

i don't agree, US good, USSR evil, how could you even compare the policies of genocide lenin, stalin, krushchev in which they murdered MILLIONS.....
you need some anti-biotics for what ails you....ooops ad hominen?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you dont control countries and never have?

not greece, the subject of our debate.....
if you could call saving the british with 400 million in humanitarian aid and 541 military advisors to stabilize the communist engineered anarchy that was present when these troops arrived to quell those 20,000 communist agitators who were being resupplied in the border mountains adjacent to communist controlled macedonia, albania and the rest of the WARSAW PACT, USSR led WARSAW PACT!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

But you have an agenda - you beleive its anti-communism.

"better dead than red"
are you a communist?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

My agenda? Ad hominem?

your agenda! ad hominem back atcha!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Let me put you hypocritical point into context with a good quote;
"Our fear of communism might someday
take over most of the world, blinds us
to the fact that anti-communism already has." --Michael Parenti

it is very hypocritical, you were right....
see soviet and chinese communism is a oppressive liberal form of totalitarianism, where anti-communism could encompass all different forms of liberal and conservative government's including governments that are also enemies to the US!!!!!
that's while i repeat an earlier contention, be careful of labels and "in-name only's"

the great United States continuously stands against the forces of oppression and those who deny human dignity!!!!
these evil forces should be fought irregardless the label!!!!!

like i'v said repeatedly, the path to acheive that goal has been messy, as we have just witnessed in egypt, sometimes our policies conflict with our principles, but to be hyper-critical smacks of jealousy and downright loser lamenting.....
every time there's a crisis, who does the world call?
we give billions hope!!!!!
would they call their emperor?

Originally Posted by garry17

This supports your premise, how?

It shows the intent was not to help people but to exert power of the empire to attain special interests.

Originally Posted by garry17

I have read your examples. Let me explain, why I feel it does not show continued control.

First, we need to realize that influence is not control. Do we agree on that?
yes...

Originally Posted by garry17

Second, we need to understand that, continued control, would ascertain, ongoing interference with the rule of nations. Do you agree with that?

yes, of course.

Originally Posted by garry17

Regardless of whether or not you agree, from your reposted
So this assertion is, that Rhee followed demands of the US, because they instilled him to power. Not a hard conclusion and could very well be accurate.
Again no argument. But would indicate more of inaction of contention of control, more than control itself

'inaction of contention of control'? What is that?

Originally Posted by garry17

So did the US demand his appointment?

They didn't demand anything. They controlled the country. He was appointed by allied authorities and then supported militarily and financially by the US.

Originally Posted by garry17

no evidence their of ongoing control it is just a fact that oppression was occurring, in the knowledge of the US.

No, it is evidence of control as elections could have been allowed and enforced - much like Vietnam, where they were instead obstructed and dissolved.

Originally Posted by garry17

This is what kills your continued control argument. Support is not control.

LOL Yes it is.

Originally Posted by garry17

the military coup was, for the US, better than the regime of the time.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by garry17

Thus, the situation was not in US control at all, for them to support the deposing of the regime of the time.

That's right, they needed to reassert control over the democratic people to ensure its interests ruled.

Originally Posted by garry17

The fact that, the alternative in the eyes of the US, was better.

Exactly - a neo-fascist police state was seen as better than a democratic and openly peaceful society.

Originally Posted by garry17

This entire example is subjective.

I really feel sorry for you if you think that.

Originally Posted by garry17

But you have to look at the last 30 years to note ongoing control.

Indeed and various other countries, like Iran, Iraq, other parts of Europe and Latin America show such continuity.

Originally Posted by garry17

Yes, you did. However, you have not shown ongoing intent, to control the country.

Yes I have. If you cant comprehend the fact launching coups to install despotic regimes is control then I can't help you. Let me put it this way, what other purpose would the US have, if not to maintain its own interests, which are anti-democratic, controlling and dominating (hence imperialistic) in Greece, or Iran or Guatemala?

Originally Posted by garry17

Yes, I see the US have many times interfered in foreign matters. However, where is the ongoing control, you continue to contend.

It is that same 'many times' you speak of.

Originally Posted by garry17

Bases in other countries, do not indicate control.

What do they indicate?

Originally Posted by garry17

If you can show me the fact, these bases have used controlling measures, then, we can agree with your premise.

I just did! They provide stations to interfere locally and internationally. They provide, as I said the basis for 'lillypad' operations, ie regional domination. The same is like saying the satellite states around the USSR were not controlled. Do you beleive that? Seriously?

Originally Posted by garry17

The fact that influence in the political scenes of foreign nations, also does not show control.

What does it show that? LOL That is the definition of control and imperialism.

Originally Posted by garry17

As it allows. the foreign government the option not to listen to influence. If you have a choice, your not being controlled.

There is no choice! Its either do what the US says or be attacked subversively - as in the case of Greece where the army set up a fascist regime!! Where is the choice in that?! LBJ said to the Greek Ambassador before the coup, as I stated; ""Listen to me Mr. Ambassador, fuc k you Parliament and your constitution...If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long."
Are the dots really that hard for you to join?

Originally Posted by garry17

You are picking moments of times, when the US did make foreign nations implement their wishes.

I shouldn't? I thought you wanted examples of control, and now you deny them?

Originally Posted by garry17

This, I agree with. You have not shown, with any of your examples, the ongoing control of these nations. That is what you need to address.

Yes, I have. The only thing that stops constant US intervention is political pressure that is too overwhelming - ie grass roots action. This is how authoritarianism (US backed) was destroyed in South Korea.

Originally Posted by garry17

As I say, I am interested in the evolvement of the debate, rather than situations. I have an open mind to both your and you opponents stance. I just feel you have not shown your assertion of imperialistic intent. don't get me wrong, your opponent has not shown the opposite either. However, he does not have to, as it is you who made the assertion.

I really can't understand how you dont see a state that installs authoritarian regimes, subversively and directly, with brutal consequences for local populaces for decades, from which events profit the US and elitist groups established by the US in those states is not imperialism. I think you should check the definition again.

btw sorry for the late reply.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

post wwII pitted the US against the soviet union, whose aim, through expansion was the destruction of capitalism, may i suggest the readings of marx, lenin and stalin...

So?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

restated; the policy of the US post wwII has been to contain the spread of communism!

Through control of other states, yes?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

why?self-preservation!!!prior to wwII, US policy was primarily neutral, through a series of neutraltity acts, the world pressed into war without US intervention, post war policy is totally different!!!
aggressive nations, especially ones with imperialist design i.e. USSR will NOT be appeased.....was this policy in the interest of the US, absolutely!!!!
did the US influence areas under "pressure" from communist expansion, absolutely!!!kennan, marshall, truman understood what the pre-war appeasement gave the world, they were driven to combat the spread of the aggressor!!!!they did, geniuses!!!!

So you agree the US exerted control over other states for its own (according to you anti-communist) interests, yes?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the US won the Cold War, and the world, aussies included have greatly benefitted from our cold war reluctance to appease communist aggression, we accept your thanks!!!!

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

we are here to dispel the urge that you hanker to criticize US policy for being victorious in our war against communist aggression.....

No, I merely want to discuss whether the US is an empire or not, so far you seem to be agreeing.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

once again i'll ask the same question for the 12th time;
would the world be better off if the USSR won the cold war?

I have said already, a thousand times over, whilst this is totally irrelevant, the answer is no.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

we are not imperialistic, for the umpteenth time, the US doesn't directly control any area outside our recognized areas of sovereignty.....

So you deny the US intervened in other countries? Ever heard of Vietnam or Korea?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

were we influential, absolutely, influence, even powerful influence, doesn't remotely infer imperialism.....

Define influential.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

did we influence directly and through proxy, absolutely....

That is control, by definition.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

did we control.....NOT, if we controlled anything....why then would the soviets sanction north korea's invasion into the south?

So you admit then the US does control other states?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the united nations responded to that NK aggression...was the world wrong?

No of course not.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

why didn't the US encourage west german invasion into the east?

Patton did.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

because it was recognized that east germany WAS DIRECTLY controlled by the soviets.....

How was it more direct than US control?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the US policy was a response to soviet aggression....

What aggression? Actually the US has been far more aggressive to the USSR. People forget the US invaded Russia before the Cold War even began - such a fact is burned in the mind of Russians, yet the US seems to forget it.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

nfluence yes...to further our goals yes.....and your goals, and all free peoples goals....you see, our interests are the interests of people who strive for economic, political and social freedoms, granted messy at times, but ultimately that's what happened in greece, SK, and japan, all your talking points....

Then you have just admitted the US is an empire - it is a state that controls/influences directly the divisions of other states to do its will and fulfill its interests. Debate over.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

it is not totally irrelevant....
this mano e mano is the result of your continued negative postings concerning US policy, when i asked you if the world would of been better if the USSR was the only superpower, you continue to avoid the question, that in and of itself is the issue.....

Actually I have answered it several times - it is NOT RELEVANT TO THE DEBATE

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the US did the world and you a service defeating the USSR, was that policy self-effacing, of course it was, but every free person within this world benefitted!!!!

Well no, but regardless, you prove my point - the US was and is an empire.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

except of course if you still live in repressive governments like iran, north korea also enemies of the US!!!!

LOL Or the repressive regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, allies of the US. LOL Can you see the hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

not imperialistic!!!!
rome, carthage, persia, alexander, ottomans, britain(sorry sore subject) those were empires!!!

How are they different to the US?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i've rewritten your statement 10 times already, you read it....

Write it again I cannot find it anywhere.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i don't agree, US good, USSR evil,

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT!

Originally Posted by the big ragu

how could you even compare the policies of genocide lenin

Which was this?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

stalin,

He did so, yes.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

krushchev in which they murdered MILLIONS.....

Which 'millions' did Khrushchev murder?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

you need some anti-biotics for what ails you....ooops ad hominen?

I compare the politics. However there are worse things than death, like poverty, starvation, etc - these dont get added to the US' list.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

not greece, the subject of our debate.....

No the subject of our debate is not Greece, it is US hegemony, which INCLUDES but is not restricted to Greece.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

if you could call saving the british with 400 million in humanitarian aid and 541 military advisors to stabilize the communist engineered anarchy

You call elections anarchy?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

that was present when these troops arrived to quell those 20,000 communist agitators who were being resupplied in the border mountains adjacent to communist controlled macedonia, albania and the rest of the WARSAW PACT, USSR led WARSAW PACT!!!!!

Again they were not led by the USSR. We have gone through this countless times. Read your own sources - I quoted them to make the point. They were supplied by Tito, who split with Stalin. They showed they were democratic. They were attacked by the British while they were fighting the Nazis! They allowed women to vote and believed in the Parliamentary system. Churchill even called them (before British repression) "those gallant guerrillas".

Originally Posted by the big ragu

"better dead than red"

Your ignorant rhetoric doesn't help your case, in fact it enhances mine because it shows how inhumane you are in analyzing these situations. To you, it would seem, as soon as one person is called socialist they are allowed to be deprived of their inalienable rights. Not only is this highly hypocritical and self-defeating, it actually reveals quite a fair bit about your arguments inability to see the obvious.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

are you a communist?

LOL, Ah jees more ignorance. The answer is a loud NO.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

your agenda! ad hominem back atcha!!!

My agenda? Of freedom and justice, yes, I wish America held the same.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

it is very hypocritical, you were right....
see soviet and chinese communism is a oppressive liberal

Wow, you really think liberalism is communist? Hhahaha/

Originally Posted by the big ragu

form of totalitarianism, where anti-communism could encompass all different forms of liberal and conservative government's including governments that are also enemies to the US!!!!! that's while i repeat an earlier contention, be careful of labels and "in-name only's"

Again you seem to have proven my point.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the great United States

Not really, but anyway...

Originally Posted by the big ragu

continuously stands against the forces of oppression and those who deny human dignity!!!!

LOL So fascists are like human dignity and democracy? HAHA I have shown how the US has down EXACTLY THE REVERSE of what you just stated, in Greece.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

these evil forces should be fought irregardless the label!!!!!

I agree - but not with their own evil.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

like i'v said repeatedly, the path to acheive that goal has been messy, as we have just witnessed in egypt, sometimes our policies conflict with our principles, but to be hyper-critical smacks of jealousy and downright loser lamenting.....every time there's a crisis, who does the world call?

Call? LOL The 'crisis' is usually invented, and the US has shown it often exacerbates them when they are real.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

we give billions hope!!!!!

Well no, you dont, in fact you leave billions on the brink of disaster, millions more destroyed financially and socially. This has been a clearly historical tendency of US foreign policy. It easy to simply brush the continuous evil deeds of US action as 'mistakes', but the fact is they do almost nothing right, or morally.

Again if you want to discuss the justification and validity of US foreign policy, by all means I can, but not here. Do you understand? The topic of this thread is US imperialism - not its nature, justification or purpose, simply whether it is or is not. And there exists NO definition that is predicated on a state being "good" or "bad" for it to be an empire.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

First, we need to realize that influence is not control. Do we agree on that?
yes...

So, we agree on that. However, then to this statement "The fact that influence in the political scenes of foreign nations, also does not show control."you say

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

What does it show that? LOL That is the definition of control and imperialism.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

They didn't demand anything. They controlled the country. He was appointed by allied authorities and then supported militarily and financially by the US.

So, who, actually appointed him. Was it the US or allied authorities?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No, it is evidence of control as elections could have been allowed and enforced - much like Vietnam, where they were instead obstructed and dissolved.

Have elections been held there since?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

That's right, they needed to reassert control over the democratic people to ensure its interests ruled.

Actually, you have not shown the control over the democratic people, at all. You claim to have shown, over the government, not the people.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Exactly - a neo-fascist police state was seen as better than a democratic and openly peaceful society.

So, as stated, it showed, that they did not have control of the previous government.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Indeed and various other countries, like Iran, Iraq, other parts of Europe and Latin America show such continuity.

So, you assert. that moments of support, in several countries, show on going control of one nation. Interesting concept you have there.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yes I have. If you cant comprehend the fact launching coups to install despotic regimes is control then I can't help you.

No, it is moments of time, not on going control. for example, Iraq, Saddam Hussein was supported into government by the US, because he was more appealing than his opposition. Do you now contend, that the US had control over him, because he was supported by them? They obviously, could not control him, as they then fight, not one, but two wars against him. Do you suggest, it was all a conspiracy, because they controlled him? regardless of why the war in Iraq occurred, or who was right or wrong, it shows the US did not control Saddam. The fact that the US supported his election (as you assert) does not show your premise.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Let me put it this way, what other purpose would the US have, if not to maintain its own interests, which are anti-democratic, controlling and dominating (hence imperialistic) in Greece, or Iran or Guatemala?

do you suggest that, by placing support upon anything, is anti-democratic, controlling and dominating?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I just did! They provide stations to interfere locally and internationally. They provide, as I said the basis for 'lillypad' operations, ie regional domination.

No, by saying you did, does not make it so. You have shown, link of the bases to the interference you claim they are doing.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

The same is like saying the satellite states around the USSR were not controlled. Do you beleive that? Seriously?

seriously, do you believe that the Russian political machine just talked nations into making laws they liked to further their interest?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

There is no choice! Its either do what the US says or be attacked subversively - as in the case of Greece where the army set up a fascist regime!! Where is the choice in that?! LBJ said to the Greek Ambassador before the coup, as I stated; ""Listen to me Mr. Ambassador, fuc k you Parliament and your constitution...If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long."
Are the dots really that hard for you to join?

So, what you suggest is, that LBJ, appointed the government in 1965?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I shouldn't? I thought you wanted examples of control, and now you deny them?

Examples are Nice, but examples showing ongoing control is needed. This you do not provide.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yes, I have. The only thing that stops constant US intervention is political pressure that is too overwhelming - ie grass roots action. This is how authoritarianism (US backed) was destroyed in South Korea.

So, what is it? Do they control south Korea or not?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I really can't understand how you dont see a state that installs authoritarian regimes, subversively and directly, with brutal consequences for local populaces for decades, from which events profit the US and elitist groups established by the US in those states is not imperialism. I think you should check the definition again.

So, what is it you object to? Is it, actions of the US? or actions of the governments the US support? So, by supporting regimes that are brutal means they are imperialistic? What if they support a governance that is not oppressive? Should I check the definition? we agreed on two that you have not shown me. You can not just tell me you have. Fine, if you disagree with me, I have explained why, you have not and you have attempted to demonstrate that you have by telling me, you have. As I said, you have show instances, but not ongoing control.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, we agree on that. However, then to this statement "The fact that influence in the political scenes of foreign nations, also does not show control."you say

What I mean is, intervention and exertion of power is not just influence, but control. Perhaps you should define influence, because it doesn't count as 'forceful coercion' in my book, which you seem to apply it as meaning instead of the word control.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, who, actually appointed him. Was it the US or allied authorities?

The US as leader of the allied authorities. And again they funded him, so what would it matter? LOL

Originally Posted by garry17

Have elections been held there since?

Since what?

Originally Posted by garry17

Actually, you have not shown the control over the democratic people, at all. You claim to have shown, over the government, not the people.

So the government is not people form the country? I really dont know where you are at, seriously.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, as stated, it showed, that they did not have control of the previous government.

No, it showed they lost control and had to reassert it.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, you assert. that moments of support, in several countries, show on going control of one nation. Interesting concept you have there.

Yep interesting and correct.

Originally Posted by garry17

No, it is moments of time, not on going control.

Ok, so the British sending troops to Boston and instituting the quartering act were not means of controlling the American colonists they were simply means of greater "influence"? And so the Americans were not fighting control, tyranny and oppression, but instead 'influence'?
Please define control and influence.

Originally Posted by garry17

for example, Iraq, Saddam Hussein was supported into government by the US, because he was more appealing than his opposition.

Yes the new nationalist regime under Abd al-Karīm Qāsim was toppled to preserve US interests, hence the US exerted control over Iraq and hence acted as the empire it is.

Originally Posted by garry17

Do you now contend, that the US had control over him, because he was supported by them?

Yes up until he caused to much chaos in attempting to preserve greater regional defence - ie once he invaded Kuwait and there was a backlash.

Originally Posted by garry17

They obviously, could not control him, as they then fight, not one, but two wars against him.

They did before, indeed he only attacked Kuwait because he believed he had permission form US envoys.

Originally Posted by garry17

Do you suggest, it was all a conspiracy, because they controlled him?

Conspiracy? Conspiracy of what? No, I contend the US acted as an empire in the region one of whose satellites became too loud.

Originally Posted by garry17

regardless of why the war in Iraq occurred, or who was right or wrong, it shows the US did not control Saddam.

Yes it shows they lost control of him once they could not support him politically - ie once his state in office became a threat to the US' regional hegemony. They had supported both his rise and maintenance in office, much like the monarchy before Qāsim.

Originally Posted by garry17

The fact that the US supported his election (as you assert) does not show your premise.

Why not?

Originally Posted by garry17

do you suggest that, by placing support upon anything, is anti-democratic, controlling and dominating?

No, I contend that supporting anti-democratic, anti-freedom prone regimes, consistently and world wide is imperialistic as it shows a desire to assert control, and not just influence, but stable, pro-US control.

Originally Posted by garry17

No, by saying you did, does not make it so. You have shown, link of the bases to the interference you claim they are doing.

Also a number of examples of direct intervention.

Originally Posted by garry17

seriously, do you believe that the Russian political machine just talked nations into making laws they liked to further their interest?

That didn't address my question.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, what you suggest is, that LBJ, appointed the government in 1965?

'Appointed'? No, he put it into office - through force.

Originally Posted by garry17

Examples are Nice, but examples showing ongoing control is needed. This you do not provide.

So two examples of direct political involvement are not examples now? LOL

Originally Posted by garry17

So, what is it? Do they control south Korea or not?

They dd far more forcefully, until free elections meant greater national sovereignty could be asserted (post-80s uprisings). This coincided with a swing away from the neo-liberal policies of US backed institutions in the country, which then saw the economy take off quite quickly.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, what is it you object to? Is it, actions of the US? or actions of the governments the US support?

That isn't really relevant to whether the US is an empire or not, but if you want to discuss it I can make another thread.

Originally Posted by garry17

So, by supporting regimes that are brutal means they are imperialistic?

No, by supporting regimes that are repressive, authoritarian and pro-US, the US exerts control, in the manner of ensuring its own interests are upheld and hence is imperialistic.

Originally Posted by garry17

What if they support a governance that is not oppressive? Should I check the definition? we agreed on two that you have not shown me. You can not just tell me you have. Fine, if you disagree with me, I have explained why, you have not and you have attempted to demonstrate that you have by telling me, you have. As I said, you have show instances, but not ongoing control.

I have referred time and time again yet you persist in simply overlooking my points. Here is the list in my FIRST post. If you want me to go through every one of them, I can. I thought three would be enough, obviously not. Here is the list;
The US, after WW2 has instigated regime change directly and indirectly in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1959 to the present), Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965), Vietnam (1961-73), Laos (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-73), Greece (1967-73), Chile and Nicaragua (1980s), and Iraq (1960s to present). The CIA has been involved in far more operations in subverting democracy, bringing down regimes and corrupting legitimate domestic institutions. The United States has supported, aided and/or even funded the acts and general security of various regimes exercising brutal domestic control or instigating crimes at different times, some notable example are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Romania, Philippines, South Africa etc. Clearly it isn't for the people of the nations involved. Clearly also it isn't out of the principles it apparently idealizes, such as democracy, capitalism and freedom. Instead it is quite clearly for control, and to maintain US hegemony across regions of most interest to it and its agenda, which I also highlighted with quotes from state planners also.

Let me quote some more because I dont think you ever read my OP.

They [post-WW2 state planners] developed the concept of what they called the "Grand Area". The Grand Area was to be a region that would include at minimum the Far East, the western hemisphere and the former British Empire, including the energy reserves of the Middle East, which the State Department described as "a stupendous source of strategic power," and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," "the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment" (referring to Saudi Arabia). At a maximum, the Grand Area should become a world system under US control; subordinated to the needs of the American economy, in a framework of liberal internationalism, in which, it was plausibly assumed, US interests would dominate.

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". The rest of the "Grand Area" is no different.

To finish off, I will quote George Kennan, one of the most prominent post war state planners;
"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So?
Through control of other states, yes?

America post WWII IS A SUPERPOWER!!!!
in what ways would you like to have seen us exert less power and influence!!!!
it comes with the job, when you are the chief cook and bottle washer, you have influence over lesser powerful cooks and bottlewashers.....
comes with the territory, like it or not, those are the facts, to be critical of US exerting TOO much power is absolutely ludicrous, the benevolence of the US government and its people to tend to every crisis, most of which was engineered by soviet expansion and export of terror, under the guise of their interpretation of the communist manifesto, support human rights, creating a livable, safe world, with astronomical growth in wealth, experienced by most is our gift....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you agree the US exerted control over other states for its own (according to you anti-communist) interests, yes?

i've stated and restated this from post #1....
self-preservation and stability should be the aim of every states foreign policy....
what is unique and special about US policy during the past 65 years has been that our policy is recognized(even by yourself) as beneficial to the world.....
so our policy, serving our self-interests, something you are critical of, helped create 65 years of human peace and prosperity never seen in the history of civilization itself.....
international policies always are driven by self-interest....
give it some thought.....
could you name ANY country/state that didn't?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No, I merely want to discuss whether the US is an empire or not, so far you seem to be agreeing.

last time, we are not an empire!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I have said already, a thousand times over, whilst this is totally irrelevant, the answer is no.

HOLD ON, the world would NOT be better off if the soviets won the cold war.....
its about time you came back from the dark side!!!!
of course the world is better, why is that?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you deny the US intervened in other countries? Ever heard of Vietnam or Korea?

of course we intervened in korea and vietnam.....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Define influential.
That is control, by definition.

influence is not control, china/soviets installing suhn in north korea, and leading the 6/25/50 invasion across the 38th parallel, is also influence not control....
soviet influence of eastern europe IS control, political, economic and social CONTROL!!!
US influence in western europe is not control, it is influence!!!!it is an alliance, based on commonality!!!
US influence is also very influential in almost all international matters, but control little....
hindsight being 20/20 we should of exerted MORE control and less influence

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you admit then the US does control other states?

control in time of war, short run (i.e. vietnam, korea)
influential long run....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Patton did.

patton was dead, post WWII.....
but even if he understood the potential of the communist threat, it was not US policy to invade east germany post WWII, even though plans were drawn during the berlin crisis, in which stalin attempted to starve 2.5 million west berliners into submission,(see berlin airlift)

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

How was it more direct than US control?

soviet direct control of eastern europe is the same as the marshall plan?
is that what you are inferring?
what happened to these states who wanted autonomy from moscow?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

What aggression? Actually the US has been far more aggressive to the USSR. People forget the US invaded Russia before the Cold War even began - such a fact is burned in the mind of Russians, yet the US seems to forget it.

you're whacked.....
i've already illustrated the design of soviet diplomacy pre and post wwII....seriously.....
korea in 1950
berlin crisis 1948
communist insurrection greece
potsdam promise 1945

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Then you have just admitted the US is an empire - it is a state that controls/influences directly the divisions of other states to do its will and fulfill its interests. Debate over.

debate over then....
we control nothing, we are extremely influential.....
the ussr was also extremely influential....
the aussie are also extremely influential proventially....
britain is also influential

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Actually I have answered it several times - it is NOT RELEVANT TO THE DEBATE

yes it is, because you criticize the victor of the cold war for being the VICTOR.....
you hyper-criticize policies, that were messy at best, without understanding the long term goals and expectations of those same policies which was the defeat of communism!!!!!
totally relevant....
if the US mistook the design of communist expansion in greece, in turkey, in italy, in france, in korea, in japan etc.....the cold war would of possibly been lost, and the world would of suffered from a not so benevolent superpower that would of exercised CONTROL not influence and retrograded the world into the fires of communist oppression!!!!!!
thank the US, and the west, that didn't happen!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Well no, but regardless, you prove my point - the US was and is an empire.

we were NOT an empire!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

LOL Or the repressive regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, allies of the US. LOL Can you see the hypocrisy?

how do we "control" saudi arabia?
egypt?
these are sovereign nations who choose to be friends with the US?
how is that our fault?
hello....is anybody home?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

America post WWII IS A SUPERPOWER!!!!

yes...

Originally Posted by the big ragu

in what ways would you like to have seen us exert less power and influence!!!!

Ah, not topple democratic regimes, do not launch coups and dont install authoritarian, even fascistic governments. You know, less imperial action.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

it comes with the job, when you are the chief cook and bottle washer, you have influence over lesser powerful cooks and bottlewashers.....

comes with the territory, like it or not, those are the facts, to be critical of US exerting TOO much power is absolutely ludicrous,
We are not discussing this.

[quote=the big ragu;3475277]the benevolence of the US government and its people to tend to every crisis,
Yes I know you like fascists but this isn't up for discussion either.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

most of which was engineered by soviet expansion and export of terror, under the guise of their interpretation of the communist manifesto, support human rights, creating a livable, safe world, with astronomical growth in wealth, experienced by most is our gift....

So you agree America exerted control over other states as a superpower?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

i've stated and restated this from post #1....
self-preservation and stability should be the aim of every states foreign policy....
what is unique and special about US policy during the past 65 years has been that our policy is recognized(even by yourself) as beneficial to the world.....

Depends what part of the world. I never said it was beneficial for most, which it hasn't been. Also US imperialism has been going on for, well I would say around 120 years, but others would say over 200 hundred years ago following the foundation of the nation. Indeed the sentiments of the founding fathers when it comes to foreign policy are quite eliminating.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

so our policy, serving our self-interests, something you are critical of, helped create 65 years of human peace and prosperity never seen in the history of civilization itself.....

Incorrect. It created peace and prosperity for a few at the price of no peace and no prosperity for many many more.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

international policies always are driven by self-interest....
give it some thought.....

could you name ANY country/state that didn't?
So you agree America exerted control over other states as a superpower?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

last time, we are not an empire!!!!

Why not, by definition of the word control, you have fully admitted it is.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

HOLD ON, the world would NOT be better off if the soviets won the cold war.....

so?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

its about time you came back from the dark side!!!!
of course the world is better, why is that?
of course we intervened in korea and vietnam.....
influence is not control,

But what the US exerted was not influence, it was control. Please tell me the difference between control and influence.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

china/soviets installing suhn in north korea, and leading the 6/25/50 invasion across the 38th parallel, is also influence not control....

No, it is control.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

soviet influence of eastern europe IS control, political, economic and social CONTROL!!!

LOL So, influence is control now? Thanks for admitting my point.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

US influence in western europe is not control, it is influence!!!!it is an alliance, based on commonality!!!

Exactly the same as the USSR. However the US did not have much commonality with many of its allies and today still fosters the same hypocritical foreign policy.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

US influence is also very influential in almost all international matters, but control little....hindsight being 20/20 we should of exerted MORE control and less influence

Why? In what way more control?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

control in time of war, short run (i.e. vietnam, korea)
influential long run....

Again please define influence and control.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

patton was dead, post WWII.....

Well he died three months after WW2 ended, so its a matter of definition of "post" I guess.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

but even if he understood the potential of the communist threat, it was not US policy to invade east germany post WWII, even though plans were drawn during the berlin crisis, in which stalin attempted to starve 2.5 million west berliners into submission,(see berlin airlift)
soviet direct control of eastern europe is the same as the marshall plan?
is that what you are inferring?

Basically. Also the later establishment of bases, coups, installation of un-democratic groups and disruption of elections. No different to the Soviet Union on the other side.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

what happened to these states who wanted autonomy from moscow?

They were forced into submission or were directly attacked where US interests were most needed, eg Greece.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

you're whacked.....i've already illustrated the design of soviet diplomacy pre and post wwII....seriously.....
korea in 1950
berlin crisis 1948
communist insurrection greece
potsdam promise 1945

No you didn't. You showed the Comintern, which was officially disbanded by 1943!! Then you jumped to the Korean war, which I showed didn't really account for US backed authoritarianism in the South since Rhee had been placed in power and began his brutal campaign to solidify his dictatorship BEFORE the Korean War. What do Potsdam and the 'Big Lift' show of the USSR? Nothing more than a mad dash to grab as much of Germany as possible to assist its post war recovery. The 'communist insurrection' in Greece as I have shown was a democratic movement that had fought against the Nazis and held free and open elections by itself, but was stepped on by British colonialism and then continued by the US which then installed a FASCIST regime in 67 when the democratic government in power declined to continue US militarization of the region.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

debate over then....
we control nothing, we are extremely influential.....
the ussr was also extremely influential....
the aussie are also extremely influential proventially....
britain is also influential

Please, again, define influence and control.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

yes it is, because you criticize the victor of the cold war for being the VICTOR.....

No I dont. I criticize the victor for being a prick.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

you hyper-criticize policies, that were messy at best, without understanding the long term goals and expectations of those same policies which was the defeat of communism!!!!!

Authoritarianism, anti-democratic policies and fascism are wrong whenever and whoever backs them!

Originally Posted by the big ragu

totally relevant....

No it isn't. Go and read the OP. This is not part of the debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by the big ragu

if the US mistook the design of communist expansion in greece, in turkey, in italy, in france, in korea, in japan etc.....the cold war would of possibly been lost, and the world would of suffered from a not so benevolent superpower that would of exercised CONTROL not influence and retrograded the world into the fires of communist oppression!!!!!!
thank the US, and the west, that didn't happen!!!!

So you agree then that the US exerted control?

Originally Posted by the big ragu

we were NOT an empire!!!!

By definition, yes you are.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

how do we "control" saudi arabia?

Propping up their regime with money and arms.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

egypt?

See above. 2 billion dollars worth of military equipment and aid.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

these are sovereign nations who choose to be friends with the US?

Well no, they are ruling elites that choose to ally with the US to preserve their own power.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

how is that our fault?

Because you are supposed to support democracy and freedom and yet do the complete reverse. It shows clear hypocrisy and dubious action and reveals the imperial nature of US foreign policy.

Originally Posted by the big ragu

hello....is anybody home?

It would seem no-one on your side is.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Ah, not topple democratic regimes, do not launch coups and dont install authoritarian, even fascistic governments. You know, less imperial action.

not allow soviet influenced communist regimes to take a foothold in greece and turkey you mean, absolutely!!!!
allowing that to happen would of been devastaing to the greeks, the turks, and US interests in containing the spread of communism!!!!
remember the peoples democratic republic of (north) korea, hows that working out?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

comes with the territory, like it or not, those are the facts, to be critical of US exerting TOO much power is absolutely ludicrous,
We are not discussing this.

but this is in essence, your beef with our policy, you complain that the US wields too much power, and point to examples of imperfect policy to substantiate your empty claims.....
i ask that you again, recognize the big picture, containment took precedence in US policy, that is fact, was our policy perfect, absolutely not, but it is what happened, for the betterment of the world!!!!!
you said so yourself, the world would of been worse off if the soviets won the cold war, give that some serious thought, because that IS what this discussion IS about!!!!
the world thanks us!!!!!
[quote=MegadethFan;3475864]

Originally Posted by the big ragu

the benevolence of the US government and its people to tend to every crisis,
Yes I know you like fascists but this isn't up for discussion either.

we are by nature a conservative government, our allies and friends also tend to be conservative, limited and unlimited monarchs, dictators can and do bring stability to regions where stability is needed, we also support democracies and republics and pressure and influence our allies to promote democratic and economic freedoms within their sovereignty's and to that extent, that is about as much as we can do....
if we were an empire however, we could FORCE them to provide democratic and economic freedoms, but we are not....
if we were an empire we could also coerce these said governments into oppression of there citizens, but again we are not....
we are a superpower that has provided the world the model, and modelled what a government should be, and provide to its citizenry.....
its ultimately up to these political and public to require their own governments to uphold these same standards!!!!
sometimes with our help, and sometimes without...

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

So you agree America exerted control over other states as a superpower?

i already restated this 10 times!!!!
we exerted influence and at times control!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Depends what part of the world. I never said it was beneficial for most, which it hasn't been. Also US imperialism has been going on for, well I would say around 120 years, but others would say over 200 hundred years ago following the foundation of the nation. Indeed the sentiments of the founding fathers when it comes to foreign policy are quite eliminating.

depends on IF that said country allies itself with the foundations that we model...
it also depends if that country is NOT islamic fascist, communist and/or third world oppressive regime....
capitalism is the success that we export, countries that allow for economic freedom ENJOY wealth and prosperity....but again we only influence, not command, if we exercised the authority you profess, the entire world would be capitalist, democratic, promote economic and political freedoms....but as i said we do not wield that kind of authority, less it was the isolated war-zone(i.e. korea and vietnam)

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Incorrect. It created peace and prosperity for a few at the price of no peace and no prosperity for many many more.

so we're dammed if we do, dammed if we don't?
we don't exert control over countries, yet you blame us for not exercising that authority under the guise that we do, its an interesting argument that fails!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

could you name ANY country/state that didn't?
So you agree America exerted control over other states as a superpower?

could you name a country that has NOT acted in its own self-interest?
i guess not, neither could I....
US policy unfortunately for you is no different that any other country in that regard.
policy decisions are made to serve our political, social and economic self-interest....
to put America and America alone into a different category and complain when we fail to meet THAT special criteria, is again where you fail!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Why not, by definition of the word control, you have fully admitted it is.

influence is not control.....it is influence!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

But what the US exerted was not influence, it was control. Please tell me the difference between control and influence.

control is to assume control, influence is not, it is to provide aid, assistance, advice, military support, economic funding.....
if a country wants those things, they can choose to accept them....
the marshall plan, for example was economic aid to european nations, it was offered to the warsaw pact countries, and the soviets chose "for them" not to accept those funds, see that is not influence, that is coercion.....
when the poles, hungarians tried to wrest the subjigation of moscow, they were brutally oppressed,that is control!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

LOL So, influence is control now? Thanks for admitting my point.

control is just that, control
when western europe accepted funds designed to rebuild their post war economies, they weren't coerced or forced to accept the monies.....
when the czechs originally accepted marshall funds they were coerced by there "controller" to rebuff the funds...that is control based on subjigation!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Well he died three months after WW2 ended, so its a matter of definition of "post" I guess.

he died in a "car crash" in december of 45....
whatever, you brought him up, he was not a post-war factor....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No you didn't. You showed the Comintern, which was officially disbanded by 1943!! Then you jumped to the Korean war, which I showed didn't really account for US backed authoritarianism in the South since Rhee had been placed in power and began his brutal campaign to solidify his dictatorship BEFORE the Korean War. What do Potsdam and the 'Big Lift' show of the USSR? Nothing more than a mad dash to grab as much of Germany as possible to assist its post war recovery. The 'communist insurrection' in Greece as I have shown was a democratic movement that had fought against the Nazis and held free and open elections by itself, but was stepped on by British colonialism and then continued by the US which then installed a FASCIST regime in 67 when the democratic government in power declined to continue US militarization of the region.

COMINTERN first.....then
COMINFORM!!!!!!
the greek communists accepted the guidelines of the COMINFORM!!!!!
you call them democrats, and truman stalin, tito and the rest of the known world called them COMMUNIST....communism was not acceptable period....
stalinist, leninist, marxist, maoist none would be allowed to fester in greece!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

No I dont. I criticize the victor for being a prick.

prick....when we saved your ass in WWII?

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Authoritarianism, anti-democratic policies and fascism are wrong whenever and whoever backs them!

not unless the only other option is COMMUNISM!!!!!

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Propping up their regime with money and arms.

now we have propped up saudi arabian monarch with money and arms, the saudi's who can buy and sell australia 5 times over need American money to prop their government.....are you for real?
this has got to be a joke.....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

See above. 2 billion dollars worth of military equipment and aid.

every year, mubarik was an ally, he was a stable political government in an unstable region.....2 billion per year to maintain stability and peace in the region....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Well no, they are ruling elites that choose to ally with the US to preserve their own power.

using your criteria, NO government would meet your criteria, were allied with the ruling elite from every country, including aussieland.....

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Because you are supposed to support democracy and freedom and yet do the complete reverse. It shows clear hypocrisy and dubious action and reveals the imperial nature of US foreign policy.

how is that assumption even remotely imperialistic?
if we had and used the influence you suggest, we could either coerce countries to commit to either.....
so according to you, we are imperators,coercing nations NOT to introduce democratic reforms and freedom which is complete nonsense!!!!!
fact is we have tremendous influence and may at times police those ideals, but more times than naught, we influence and suggest democratic reforms, like we have been in egypt since the bush doctrine in 03.....
but since our allies choose not to institute reforms, you suggest that we should throw the babe out with the bathwater and if we don't, and even in it wouldn't be in our best interest, or the interest with the world, the new standard you'd hold us to, we should force these countries to institute reform....
there's a reason that this won't happen......
its because we have little or no control, hence we are not an empire!!!!!
kabish?