That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Now, I guess. But we started from the point of WW2 to discuss whether it is or isnt.

You mean only post ww2? Yes, well Ragu is says it now all hinges on Greece and the USSR, so...

It would better if we could touch more examples, but it doesn't seem possible.

 

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

Hence imperialistic. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Well then I've won.

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'.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I agree, the US and USSR were both evil hegemons expanding their power.

Totally irrelevant to this thread.

So you dont control countries and never have?

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

Who cares.

My agenda? Ad hominem?

Then this makes you an imperialistic hegemon.

Totally irrelevant.

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

Think about what the US established 'anti-communism' is. Hint.

 

Is Chinese control over Tibet and Xinjiang a form of hegemony?

 

In a word yes.

Why is it that it is looked upon as a derogative term?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hegemony

Is this derogative?

The fact that the US has shown it's leadership, over the world sphere, is no way derogatory. It is simply a fact that they have hegemony.

To be imperialistic there needs to be shown that the intention of the US is to continue to rule over the world using it's hegemony. As neither party have shown this contention, it becomes redundant to assume they are. In many cases, such as china, has shown every day, as they continue to retain control of their domain. The USSR had for some time attempted to exercise imperialistic intention, as communism requires it to be so, for it to remain the order of the day.
University today would attempt to show actions over a small time frame show imperialistic intent. Even though, the intent maybe there, practice has shown that empires do not succeed. It is important to have you allies remain independent for any type of order within the confines. As the British empire is now more of an ideal, rather than a practice.

Intent does not show imperialism, it simply shows how people would label actions across the world sphere

 

Yes, of course.

 

See my first post. I have shown the US acts directly to serve its own interests by exerting forceful control over states it deems out of line with its agenda. This is imperialism.

They succeed for a while but eventually succumb to the flaws that initially made them so great - namely that of authoritarianism.

Of course it does. If a state seeks control, whilst stationing troops, bases, military equipment and also installing regimes, corrupt and anti-democratic - even fascistic, then it shows the state behind such action is not seeking allied independence but control and manipulation - it is imperialistic.

 

I have read your first post. You do make good points but, am I to understand, that you have shown this because, you have told me so? Or am I to make my own decision of whether you have or have not shown me your premise?

This is essentially correct. However, you have not shown the continued intent to control. You have stated that while the US has based troops and bases upon foreign soils, as their intent to control . you have shown no example of on going intent or on going control . This is where you have failed to support your debate.

In other words you have not shown the on going control needed to form the premise of the US being an imperialist hegemony. You have pointed to their intent to create democracies in their image but have failed to show continued control.

Remember, it is the observer that decides who is failing. It is the observer who need to see your examples. You can not just tell the observer, you have told them already.

 

So, you contend I have not given any evidence? You can beleive whatever you like, I was just saying I made several points and gave several examples in my OP, not to mention throughout. Let me ask you this then, what point would you like to see for my premise to hold its weight in your mind?

You mean why they have bases?

Yes I have. Here's some graphical data;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...x-US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg.png
http://militarybases.com/

"737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire
With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and military bases spread across each continent, it's time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire. "
http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/

I really do suggest you go back and read my posts since I've given a few examples, most notably US historical militarism in Korea and Japan.

See above and other pages.

Well I have by showing they never implemented 'American style democracies' but instead 'stable' regimes, authoritarian and anti-democratic in most cases, with US support and continued military maintenance, alive still today in most places of interest.

If I seriously haven't shown you anything, place point of what you need. I seriously do not want to have to copy everything I have written simply because you wont read what I have already posted, but if you want more, it would be appreciated if you showed how the points I have made already do not prove my contention.

 

Look what you have not shown me is that while bases are located across the globe. You have not indicated the continued control by these bases. Yes, I agree, that they have used controlling and, even at time, authoritarian efforts in their processors, but you have not indicted the continued control.

you can point to the CIA operations across the globe as being so intent. however in situations such as Afghanistan, it is known that once operations where finished, they left the country without another thought. This predicated the situation the world is in now. The coalition forces, even NATO can not absolve themselves of the situation at present. This would show, more to the point, of not attempting on going control.

Look I know that this debate is in it’s infancy, I would just suggest, that we have far better examples of your premise.

 

LOL So that would include, what exactly? Election infiltration? Operations being conducted with their use in other countries; ie 'Lilly pad operations'? I have already given examples of these.

That IS continued control!! An authoritarian regime ensures control! Can't you make that connection?

What do you mean? US action in Afghanistan was done entirely to do damage to the USSR, after doing so it ditched the country in an even worse state of poverty, repression, chaos and backwardness than when the socialists initially took power.

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.

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

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

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.

Also I showed how the US reinstalled fascists in Greece, since Ragu was most interested in that country. 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;
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqb1cdfZ5U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqb1cdfZ5U[/ame]

 

This supports your premise, how?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

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...

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!!!!

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!!!!

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?

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....

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....

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!!!!

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

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

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?

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!!!!!

"better dead than red"
are you a communist?

your agenda! ad hominem back atcha!!!

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?

 

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

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

yes, of course.

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

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

LOL Yes it is.

Exactly.

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

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

I really feel sorry for you if you think that.

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

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?

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

What do they indicate?

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

 

So?

Through control of other states, yes?

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

Irrelevant.

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

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

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

Define influential.

That is control, by definition.

So you admit then the US does control other states?

No of course not.

Patton did.

How was it more direct than US control?

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.

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.

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

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

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

 

How are they different to the US?

Write it again I cannot find it anywhere.

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT!

Which was this?

He did so, yes.

Which 'millions' did Khrushchev murder?

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

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

You call elections anarchy?

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".

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.

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

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

Wow, you really think liberalism is communist? Hhahaha/

Again you seem to have proven my point.

Not really, but anyway...

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.

I agree - but not with their own evil.

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

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.

 

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

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

Have elections been held there since?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

 

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.

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

Since what?

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

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

Yep interesting and correct.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Why not?

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.

Also a number of examples of direct intervention.

That didn't address my question.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

 

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....

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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)

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?

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

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

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!!!!

we were NOT an empire!!!!

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?

 

yes...

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

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.

 

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?

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!!!!!

 

Which Soviet influenced groups are these? They clearly disobeyed Soviet policy and took their powers from other sources, namely their direct neighbors, who I showed were not entirely loyal to Stalin. Now you might say 'oh but one slight connection to the USSR means thew US had to act'. But then why has the US failed to act in other instanced? In fact, in the case of Ceausescu in Romania you made AGREEMENTS with him because he presented economic progressive intent, but was a great admirer of Stalin. Why not apply the same logic to the Greek resistance, which praised the allies as friends and had supported democratic constitutional government? Total hypocrisy. Total imperialism.

It was devastating because of US actions. Ah and so I see you admit the US exerted control?

But it wasn't for the betterment of the world. The world was greatly disadvantaged by the US. Such US policy was not for communism, it was for the US. It had existed since the founding fathers and continues to today where no such 'threat' as big as communism (as purported to be) exists.

Indeed it would have been worse, but it is still bad now.

Not at all. The US is hated in places where you suggest it should be highest in support - such as South Korea. This is an article from 1987, a few years after the US backed authoritarian regimes was destroyed. The cries form the people are remarkably similar to other places today;
Anti-Americanism Grows in South Korea

fascism is conservative?

Of course with great misery o the people under them. Only an empire acts like this. You just admitted so.

No you don't. You INSTALLED A FASCIST REGIME. What don't you get about that? The government before the US backed coup was not only stable it was also highly democratic.

Of you don't force democracy because you don't want democracy. You cant have democracy to sustain an empire. The US is precisely an empire because it supports dictators and such that cater to its needs rather than its peoples.

Yes, you do.

And yet placed governments totally contrary to such ideas in other countries and then supported and aided them!

Thank you for, in your own words, showing how the US is an empire.

Please define influence and control.

What foundations? Is fascism part of your foundations?

LOL You support these government, except communist ones. You support, as an example, the most radical Islamic country in the Arab world - Saudi Arabia. Over half the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

No, they don't. Take Haiti as an example. You don't actually export capitalism in any form, you export state-capitalist economics that equate to imperialism. Anyway, looking at Haiti is a good example. America and France have been intervening to implement their own economic control in the country for years. The 'neo-liberal' reforms under Reagan and then Clinton in Haiti saw their entire rice industry destroyed and instead people were forced to enter low paid manufacturing jobs that were owned by the US. Since no economic industry remained, US agribusiness came in to fill the void and make sweeping profits at the cost of immense poverty and deaths. Just an example of 'US implemented capitalism'. The real success stories are in those countries, or governments, that manage to avoid US economic imperialism, such as Japan, where he government retained a post-war economy that was highly anti-capitalist in procedure but had immense benefits to the country. The US was willing to allow such intervention because it worked and Japan was its satellite. The US itself isn't capitalist in any ideologically true manner. It constantly intervenes in the market, against its own international formulas. A good example is the 'conservative' Reagan, who DOUBLED protectionist barriers to trade to save weak US steel industry and an inefficient manufacturing sector. This is something that was publicly denounced however. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Why would it be the whole world? Besides, it is now.

 

Actually you do, as I have shown. There was no war in Latin America, or the Mid East, yet there as well you supported fascism, anti-democratic authoritarian regimes.

Not sat all. You are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed for having done it. If you hadn't have, we would have another history and we would be commenting on that instead.

WTF?!? So you admit you control countries and exert force over them but deny it is force or control?!?

Indeed, except that it is now an empire.

Exactly, hence your foreign policy was not for 'the world' or 'to save the world form communism' it was entirely for yourself, or rather for the elites that run the US.

What special criteria?

Again please define the difference.

No, they didn't. The Comintern had already disbanded by the time conflict broke out. This was no reason to fight. I have already shown this WITH YOUR OWN SOURCES.

Actually it was in the case of Ceausescu.

And none ever did to begin with. Besides, it is no place of yours to decide and buy the very admission that you think the US has that right you have admitted the US is an empire. Only empire decides how people can or should live.

Saved my ass? LOL

Yeah but communism really means anything. It was equated by the post war planners to essentially mean ANY nationalist movement that would not foster pro-US economic interests. Also again by your own words you think the US has the right to intervene in other countries for its own interests, which is imperialism at its core.

....?....The US has been allied to the Saudis since 1943, and economically entwinded since 1931. They did so in order to secure the oil reserves there. The Americans gave them the infrastructure and equipment to do so. The US has created a huge stockpile of military assets in Saudi Arabia as part of this ongoing arrangement. The Saudis meanwhile are highly anti-democratic, with an appalling human rights record and immense disparity of wealth - ie the wealth you describe which is true, is entirely concentrated in the elitist groups that run the country - just as the US wants. Indeed many commentators have described the country to the conditions of Tsarist Russia before the Revolution.

LOL Exactly, the US is an empire that seeks to control states to further its own aims. Funding the Egyptian regime meant horrendous consequences for the population at large again. Consequently to your ignorant assumptions of 'oh it benefits the whole world', Egyptians now live within a police state. 40% of the population lives on less than $2 a day. This is neither capitalism you believe America spreads nor the prosperity.

Well no, because Aussieland has a democratic system. You in fact do stipulate when necessary (ie profitable) that democracy is needed, hence economic blockades on places like Iran, Zimbabwe etc. In actual fact however, you don't really care for democracy or legitimate government, because you are an empire.

Why would you espouse democracy and criticize others for not being democratic, and even set up blockades and invade countries in the name of restoring democracy and then at the same time support undemocratic regimes that are just as or even more brutal - or even a few kilometers away!?

And you do. You don't even have to coerce, you also invade and topple them directly. The examples are in the OP.

So, where did you ask Saudi Arabia for reform or encourage it to do so? Where did you do this in Egypt? Where did you do this in Vietnam? Korea? Where and when?

LOL Yeah you 'suggested' reform but made no effort to bring it about and still continued the billions of aid. In a place like Haiti, you made no attempt to simply 'suggest' you went in and did it yourself, same as Iraq (even though both had democratic institutions by the criteria of US' allies).

What interest is it to the world to maintain an authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia or Egypt? What interest is it in Guatemala or Indonesia?

This isn't a "new" standard - IT YOUR OWN!

Yes its because you are an empire and democratic systems are not profitable.

LOL

Yes your failure is noted. Please define control and influence. You will find you have already proven me correct.

 

this is turning into a pissing contest, and i'm beginning to tire of the same old nonsense....
you persist on "labels' without putting the state of the world during the cold war in perspective.....
for all the complaints you continuously repeat, some of which i absolutely see no problem with, taking into account the static conditions "on the ground" at the time, are based on two scholastic critics of American foreign policy since the 1940's
noam and chalmers perception is morphed into your need to place American policy and the need to find fault with it, as if we held some vast plan to rule the world....
it is nonsense!!!!
the fact you cannot see this simple fact, especially since it doesn't explain or explain away the state of current and cold war realities....
your hellbent desire to criticize, fails to take into account these realities, which quite frankly i'm sick of re-writing....
your animosity blinds the facts that i have re-illustrated several time already, if you continue to repeat these as if you haven't comprehended anything i have previously written, i will have to conclude that your emnity blinds your reason...
the fact that the US cannot do anything right in your eyes is your problem, not mine!!!

US winning the cold war is now devastating?
once again, we are influential and during war controlling, 10th time already!!!

now we're trying to diss our founding fathers?
drinking koolade much!!!!
besides the fact that this OPINION is total BS, do me a favor, i don't know if your just trying to be a total nitwit, or just completely disrespectfull, but i'm starting to lose my patience, and you're starting to lose my respect....

atypically your opinion....
as i said if we were an empire, i'm sure it would be even better for you!!!!
but we're not, so yes many countries still haven't experienced the freedom that "we" enjoy!!!

the US backed authoritarian regime was destroyed?
how would an true empire let that happen?
anti-Americanism grows all over the world also, so what?

derr....

no reindeer games, i believe i've written and re-written what i've said too many times already!!!

yes we probably did!!!!

we can't have democracies to sustain an empire?
another chomsky quote?
that's probably the dumbest nonsense written by anyone on this thread....

i guess we do...if you say so!

already explained why and who we support, or supported....not repeating it again!

reindeer games

did it last post!

again, i've already explained this several times also, there are several instances where our ideals are in conflict with our interests, such as the support of dictators(fascists-your carefully scripted word)...
those dictators can serve the interest of the US, the region, or the world!!!
case in point the nassar-sadat-mubarik egypt....
nassar supported by the soviets.....instability, wars conflicts against israel(i'll let you deduce why that was)
sadat becomes allied and supported by US, signs peace with israel, murdered...
mubarik supported by US, 30 years of peace and stability between israel and egypt....
was that good for the US, and the US only?

saudi arabia is, last time i checked a sovereign nation, and as a sovereign nation they DO NOT support terrorism, bin laden is also a saudi....do you pretend to be naive not to unerstand the difference....
last time i checked, i also believe the aussies support the saudi's,are we to believe that the aussies are hypocritical also?
the fact of the matter is that the aussies have about as much power to institute regime change in the arab world as America, short of going to war....
so pony up, if the saudi's bother you that much, don't wait for the Americans to save your ass again, ante up, take some responsibility, or is it none of your business, only our business....
see, your emnity is based on America NOT doing what you personally feel is rightous, and you become critical because we don't behave like the empire you think we ought to be....
i'm personally flattered!!!!

japan?
you keep bringing them up....you mean the japan that relies on its security from the US?
once again, your emnity towards everything American has clouded your reason, within the same sentence you praise japan, and criticize US IS HYPOCRITICAL and unfounded.....
JAPAN isn't protectionist?
only reagan!!!!
what did reagan, not shake your hand or something, or is this another ridiculous example of just trying to be disrespectful?

the whole world benefits from PAX AMERICANA!!!!
why?
because it is the truth!!!!

 

How does context change the definition of imperialism? It doesn't. Either the US exerts control, or it doesn't. End of story.

I have quoted more than them.

Lets cut to the chase. Please define influence and control. If you can't, I will. Don't do it through examples or assumptions or personal opinion, do it with a proper definition please.

The government you installed in Greece was fascist, no other word to describe it.

Yes. Guess who invaded Egypt? Israel. Israel was the aggressor after 1967, but that's another story.

I never said they supported terrorism I said it was a tyrannical state whose ally was the US.

Yes, the ruling Australian government that would have declared us allies (which exactly?) would be hypocritical completely.

You are joking right? So we give Mubarak 2 billion a year and we give Saudis state of the art military equipment? LOL

You said the US supports democracy and the prosperity of people./ But as I have shown and now you admit, they clearly do not.

'relies on security'? LOL

Not at all. I quite lick many things American, such as the constitution and the American people. The only thing I detest is US foreign policy, which is what we are debating. Currently you are dabbling in ad hominem instead of debate.

It was extensively, hence its success.

WTF?! Is it ever possible for you to actually address my points!!!! Are you really that incapable of debate you go straight to me instead of my arguments? You really suck at debating I have to say.

No, it doesn't. Not in Egypt. Not in Haiti. Not in Guatemala, not in Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia and not in the countries of the 50 or so governments that were toppled for US interests.

Yes, an imperial truth.

 

(so, in order for your conspiracy to work, in latin America and the ME we must of at one time installed the monarchs in the ME, mubarik, qadaffi and the rest, and then give them cash to maintain the repression of its citizens.....
do me a favor, list all the monarchs and dictators in the ME that we "controlled" put into office and then coerced to maintain that oppression, you might be onto something....
maybe i can help you uncover the cabal, maybe it was the tri-lateral commission....
OMG, you think we're being watched right now.....)

this is an example of what your emnity towards America is bloviating into......

but we're not, too bad for you, all the suffering going on in aussieland, maybe our emperor could help you out?

restated 11 times now.....

reindeer games

now the world would be better off "red"....
cmon already.....nonsense....yoohoo

3rd time: no shiiit the comintern desbanded, they accepted the aid and direction from the new communist exporter of chaos and anarchy the COMINFORM!!!!!
the commies chose not to give up their arms to the british, BEFORE the US even showed up....
after the US showed up, stalin must of shiiit his shorts, because guess what....thanks truman....GAME OVER for nonsense in greece and turkey, 400 million in humanitarian aid, 541 military advisors, and commies finnito....
that was easy, as truman says "next"

cold war policies meant to do what?
one guess?
divide the warsaw pact!!!!
you got it, awesome job,i'm proud of you!!!

not according to you, you earlier blamed all the ME monarchies and dictatorships on the US because we are according to you, an empire....
so you must give us credit for establishing DEMOCRACY in IRAQ.....

yes saved your ass OLO

these aremy own words, ready, i'll prequote it for you
"during the cold war, communist agression was contained by three early policies;
truman doctrine, marshall plan and the eisenhower doctrine, communist expansion was contained and not allowed to fester, because soviet communism was not acceptable to policy makers"
this is self survival, our interest, and billions of peoples interests!!!
saving people from the brutality of communist oppression is our gift!!!!
is REAGANS GIFT!!!!

oil is an important commodity, the free trade of oil is vital for humanity, and especially industrialized western capitalist systems.....
did you think the soviets knew that also?
i'm talking about world-wide wealth and prosperity not just the saudi's who are sitting on gold!!!!
the era of American influence of world affairs has brought about tremendous prosperity for MOST in this world, our influence and role is a beacon for others to emulate, if only we weilded the control you opine, millions more would be free from communist, fascist oppression....

we paid for stability and peace in the region, you should pay us back!!!!
...and the egyptians wanted economic freedoms, revolted and mubarik left.
too bad for mubarik, he should of listened to BUSH in 03, condaleeza rice in 04, 05, 06, 07, 08!!!!!
man, i'd eat like a king, $2 a day.....lets go for a visit!!!!!

blockades in iran?
those are UN sanctions, which are supported by every country in the world....
i guess they support sanctions against iran because we are an empire?
or
because iran and the muppet 12'ver with nuclear weapons is DANGEROUS?

yep!!!
its miles not kilometers, oh you didn't get that memo from the emporer yet?

sometimes we go to war, with the support of the sane world!!!

bush doctrine, or would you need youtube videos?

you are stating, on the record that saddam's iraq was a democracy?
so now we need to suggest?
how many times?
3?
4?
5?
14?
how many mandates(suggestions) would you need?

O I L
or
S T A B I L I T Y
or
P E A C E

it is your standard, you expect the US to NOT act in its own self-interest, not every other country or state since pre-civilization, just the USA....

democracies NEED PEACE, and PEACE is profitable for ALL
NOTE: the wealth gained by humanity during PAX(peace) AMERICANA(America)

reindeer games