That the US is an imperial hegemon.

You must be desperate to discover that not everyone accept your vehement anti-American hysteria. It would be a good idea if you disposed of this diatribe into the garbage bin where it belongs. But maybe you could spend some of your time constructively by discussing:

- the vile Muslim anti-Democratic, woman hating, despotic regimes that rule some countries of the world;

- the vile regime that runs Zimbabwe;

- the regime that regularly kills journos in Russia;

- the tyrannical leadership that runs China with its total disregard for the inhabitants of Tibet.

That should keep you busy for a while, but only if you have an open mind that operates beyond your anti- American hysteria.

 

can we or can we not use these sites?

are you freaking kidding me, you lambaste reagan un-capitalist programs, and now credit gorbachev for acquiescing to STRENGTH!!!!
my patriots just lost to the jets, should i give credit to tom brady for playing poorly?
you are totally wrong, and i will absolutely blow you out of the water AFTER GREECE!!!

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"
gorbachev inherited detente....
he initiated political reforms only after it became painfully obvious that communism could not compete economically with the omnipresence of spending trillions on new weapons and technology that the soviets did not have the wherewithall or the economic means to compete.....
poltiical and social reforms were a last ditch effort to save his hegemony....
and they were an epic fail....
do you want to know how we know this?
because the soviet union DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!!
why?
because gorbachev wanted to destroy his own imperial hegemony?
N O T!!!
wake up already....

three little letters motivated the soviet/gorbachev to sue for stopping the "arms race".....
you ready?
S D I
gorbachev feared that all his weapons would be obsolete if SDI was implimented!!!
obsolete, gorbachev knew that SDI meant the end of the soviet empire...
reagan also knew it, and played him like a fiddle....
i suggest you re-read the geneva and reykavek notes....

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!!!!
you lose!!!

you've totally failed on greece?
i've repeatedly shown you that what was of paramount urgency was the containment of communism....
i've also illustrated from numerous posts that America was justified in supporting status quo in greece, that the forces of "evil" communism was bent on making an unstable post war greece, more unstable through crippling labor strikes and anarchy, both a feeding ground for expansion of the 20,000 so called "stalinist" communist agitators supported initially by the comintern then by the cominform and tito, bulgarian, albanian communists.....
britains inability to quell the revolt ceded expectations to TRUMAN who rightly saw the fall of greece as unacceptable.....

 

Well no, isolationism needs to be defined. Expansionism has been very much alive within US foreign policy. The end of the revolution saw an isolationist principle - to Europe, but the colonists expanded over the continent dramatically. After the Civil War, the Republicans that had previously condemned the expansionist and exceptional ideas of Southern Democrats began to foster and share the same ideas - contending that it was physical nature of humanity (as in gravitational pull) to be dominated by the US in the region. With this idea, following US government dramatically expanded US military and political hegemony in the region. Their 'intervention' in Cuba is a good example - where the US military did not allow the resistance, which has now been shown to have down almost all the work and effort in the war, were prevented by the US officials to attend the surrender of the Spanish! The relationship with Europe changed once the US found itself a leading superpower, and the capable of extending its domination (post WW2).

Define 'neo-isolationist' thinking because I cant see where such a philosophy has played ANY part in US foreign policy.

 

Well no i agreed to take on argument at a time, not one example at a time.

But you are analyzing the US in a vaccum by only analyzing Greece, avoiding Asia, the rest of Europe and South America.

Again this is TOTALLY irrelevant. In fact by saying this you again agree with me - the US, for whatever ends you call i dont care, was an imperialist hegemon and still is today.

Show me where in 44, where the civil war was at its height, where the Comintern was in control and where and how the USSR was directing action. Prove this point you have yet to do this.

 

Explain to me by extrapolating and analyzing my definition please.

Wrong. Where does what I said conflict with the first definition of empire? The US has absolute control which it exercises illegally and unfairly - with bases as Chalmers notes.

How does it suggest my premise is wrong?

How?

How?

Again it isnt because it doesn't actually show how the US is not an imperialistic hegemon.

 

Actually most do, and I'm not anti-American but hey have fun with yourself.

LOL I can't - you have filled it up with your previous dribble.

Why would I discuss these, how are they relevant? Oh well most of the "vile Muslim anti-Democratic, woman hating, despotic regimes" have been created and supported by the US. The rest is totally irrelevant.

I dont disagree with your point - they aren't relevant. Also by showing you couldn't address any of the points I made reveals your total humiliating defeat. Good day.

 

You can, I just question their (namely the Marxist) sincerity due to its obvious bias. Perhaps you dont mind bias but I do.

Again what strength of Reagan's existed before he was in office? LOL
Seriously read the first and Boston articles and you can clearly see I am totally correct.

Nope.

Well you have been blown out of the water so far so I doubt it.

Again you have been totally annihilated in this debate because you have failed to address the issue of the OP - the US is an imperialistic hegemon. I dont care if it was because of the USSR, or not - all I want to know is if it was an imperialistic hegemon or not. So far you have merely aided me in showing it is!

I have shown it was instead to keep US hegemony, but either way we both agree - the US wanted to maintain control and have power over Greece and its politics? Yes? You agree?

Regardless of whether you think it justified or not, you still agree with me that the US exercised its strength to interfere and control Greek politics to further its own goals yes?

 

Thanks for answering all my points with your usual bilge. You must shake and tremble every night thinking and dreaming about all those dreadful Americans. It's a pity you can't concentrate on the real Trojan Horse within our midst.

You would have made a good companion to Chamberlain prior to WW11. He probably would have given you a knighthood.

 

Happy to do so bro.

Not really but good luck to ya.

Let me guess, you'll say Islam?

How so? I think I would have punched the guy for furthering maintenance of the British Empire before anything else.

Why?

 

'Let me guess, you'll say Islam?'

You IQ is improving very rapidly.

Keep it up,but you will need more than IQ when the time comes to stand up and fight for the democratic vaules of the West. Or will you, and your cringing ilk, just do another 'Chamberlain' and lie dowm like meek lambs ready to be slaughtered?

 

No, you're just obvious.

Yeah we need to tell the US to actually live up to the,m in OTHER countries.

'cringing ilk'? LOL

Have any relevant points to this topic to make? If you want to debate the threat of Islam, by all means go ahead - but on another thread, away from this topic.

 

I only chose this comment due to the fact it sort of suited what I wish to point out.

Look while we all agree that the US has hegemony over the world at this present time it has become extremely apparent that both parties have stalled at this stage. If you continue to remain in this state the debate will sink into nothing but insult.

So, with that being said, I have not seen anything that supports imperialism as in you original premise.
As from a couple of sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

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

Can we agree on those definitions?

IF so, now although the US has injected itself into many battles on the terms of communism is evil scenario it is also apparent that they have also left the countries to rule themselves. While I agree they are looking for the best result for their nation, which I also contend is usually in our nations best interest(debatable I am sure) it also must be seen as the intent is not to rule or govern the country it supports. The Question of placing bases within these nations does not infer imperialistic intention. You remarked that the Japanese would not agree, because of the base on their land. But you have to remember that the base was their to insure no repeat to WW2. Whether or not this continues for this region, the US has shown although they have the ability to impose rule over this nation it has allowed it to govern themselves with some provisos not to move into the same actions as before WW2.
In fact if we look at the situation in germany after the war a nation that many nations wish to have disolved into other nations making germany nonexistent. They split the nation and the USSR ruled with an iron hand while the west supported self rule. The result now after many died, is a nation that is a power house economically within the world market in a very short time. Again not governed by the US and sometimes very much at odds with them.

Now, let us also look at why the Japanese attacked the US supposedly unprovoked. I am very sketchy here as I do not have all the facts and would take me months to build sources to my claim here. and I will take good constucted argument in refute as good enough rebutal. not just shameful insult.

The Japanese had a very strong trade with the US before any hostilities including steel and energy. When Germany moved to militarily action the US move all support to England and France to create war with Hitler. Not a problem but then they ignored Japan to supply the war effort even though they would not enter the war. As Japan industry slowed to a halt it became apparent they needed to pick sides. It was either fight for their right to exist or drown in poverty. So they chose and the result is as we see it today.

The reason of why I bring this up is simply to show that the US is not free from blame with Japan but they also do not control the Japanese government or populace. Generally it is known that if you attempt to create a empire it will eventually fail due to the ability for one nation to control concurred nations. It is more valuable and possible to remain friendly and advisory to ensure that your friends also follow the path you wish to be on. This would allow far less nations to have more control over world issues than being in any type of empire.

This is why Australia punches way above its weight in the geopolitical scene. To many across the world we are insignificant bumf**k nation at the bottom of the world. But when our pollies talk most hear. Although many may disagree we are not simply past off as infants in the world scene.

Now that is food for thought. You can refute all I have said I am sure. But neither if you have addressed the main point of your debate. You seem stuck on one part and I wish you would move on. Don’t get bogged down please

 

ok...

Fair enough. I have posted some question to Ragu which I think will now cut to the chase - they specifically ask him to show how his arguments relate to the topic, which they increasingly dont. He seems to be having an ethics debate rather than a political one.

Alright. I essentially define it as a system whereby one state exercises extensive control and power over others.

Actually usually they haven't, or at least, not with military bases and the shadow of political intervention still at hand - a characterization of an empire.

Of course it is to rule. You just admitted it. 'they are looking for the best result' you dont just 'look' for its by places bases, invading countries and launching coups, interventions and internal political chaos - you do it to maintain your own control, as you said, to further your own interests. Regardless of what these interests are, these are qualities of an empire.

Why not, my I ask?

Why would the Japanese repeat world war 2 in the 60s, 70s, 80,s or 90,s when they economy had become and now is totally, dependent on the west? If the logic were simply to maintain peace, then why haven;'t the bases been pulled out? They are clearly no longer necessary. it makes far more sense that Japan serves as a satellite state, providing America with a launch pad to wage wars and exercise military control in the region, as it did during the Vietnam war. This latter conclusion makes far more sense, and leads to a clear imperialistic tendency.

Not really. Japan was incapable of any military action post ww2. Today it has a military, but it isnt ww2 worthy - and it never has been. The US has not simply left the Japanese to self government, as they should if it were simply looking to preserve the peace. As I showed, the CIA has conducted several political ventures in the country to curb democratic initiatives and maintain the same pro-US party in government.

Not really. Germany, whilst (obviously) developed a dependency on US control and maintenance, as did the East of the Soviet Union for post-war rebuilding, still had many domestic, democratic movement thwarted where US economic interests were threatened;
"The military occupation of West Germany, under which its constitution was established, was seen, at least by the Americans, first and foremost as aimed at the restoration of West German capitalism and supportive state machinery - rather than at the restoration of German democracy. So on certain key occasions, the US occupiers openly advanced business interests by suppressing popular democracy.

Donald Sassoon deals with this in Chapter Six of One Hundred Years of Socialism. He explains that leftwing economic proposals were consistently hampered by the Americans. The SPD (Social Democrats) called for a planned economy and large-scale nationalization in 1946, and, partly because the Nazis had made rightwing views unpopular, the CDU (Christian Democrats) also called for nationalizations. But the support of the British government and the main two German political parties for nationalization was not enough: there was not yet any central government to implement it, and regional attempts by thwarted by the United States.
In the West German state of Hesse, the Constituent Assembly voted for a pro-nationalization constitution, with the support of both the CDU and the Communists. (Only the Liberals were against.) The US occupying forces tried to sabotage the provision by subjecting it to a separate referendum from the constitution as a whole. 76.8% of Hesse citizens voted in favour of the new constitution, and 71.9% voted in favour of the pro-nationalization article. So the United States, which loves democracy, then vetoed the article’s implementation.
Sassoon adds: "Similar left-leaning legislation establishing some form of industrial democracy in Hessen, Baden-Wurttemberg and Bremen was vetoed by the Americans either directly or through pressure on the French and the British. Communist newspapers were censored, protest strikes banned, and land reform plans drastically reduced." In the Ruhr, Britain wanted to introduce a form of industrial democracy, but again the Americans vetoed it.
The West German Nazis
The US was deeply worried by the trends towards social democracy in Germany. Noam Chomsky tells us: "The United States was determined to prevent expropriation of Nazi industrialists and firmly opposed to allowing worker-based organizations to exercise managerial authority." The US resolved that it would "veto the major union constitutions, forcefully terminate social experiments, vetoing state legislation, co-determination efforts, and so on. Major Nazi war criminals were recruited for US intelligence and anti-resistance activities." One example was that of Reinhard Gehlen - who had headed Nazi military intelligence on the Eastern front, and who now became head of the West German state espionage agency, under CIA supervision. "Union activists were purged and strikes were blocked by force." Nazis were rehabilitated and the treatment of workers was so appalling that even the American Federation of Labor complained about it.
Michael Parenti explains: "The Western capitalist allies did little to eradicate fascism... except for putting some of the top leaders on trial at Nuremburg." As early as 1947, German conservatives began to complain that Nuremburg prosectors were pro-Jewish and pro-Communist. "Under the protection of the US occupation authorities, the police, courts, military, security agencies, and bureaucracy remained largely staffed by those who had served the former fascist regimes or by their ideological recruits - as is true to this day. The perpetrators of the Holocaust... got away with it - in good part because those who were supposed to investigate these crimes were themselves complicit."
Note, for example, the West German businesses, and US businesses, and other businesses internationally who had given so much help to the Nazis and who had so eagerly agreed to employ slave labour. The Rockefellers’ Chase National Bank laundered money for the Nazis, and went unpunished. Corporations such as DuPont, Ford, General Motors and ITT eagerly assisted the Nazis. "After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the US government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by Allied bombings." GM got $33 million. And Allied bombings were actually designed to hit German civilians in preference to damaging business property: "Cologne was almost levelled by allied bombing but its Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched." The Allies put the interests of big business above those of the war effort - and above those of humanity.
Two of the very few victories for the Left: Article 15 of the West German Federal Constitution, which permits the socialization of both industry and natural resources; and the special rights granted to the trade unions in the coal and steel industries of the British occupation zone - which perhaps laid the ground for the co-determination laws passed by the West German Federal parliament much later on."
http://www.oocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/6524/politics/wgdem.html

continue on next post....

 

But I wouldn't say Germany is a good example if US imperialism, not a good one at all, however its bases still liter its industrial sectors. A better nation would be South Korea, where 'in defence against communism', the US went as far as to install a totally authoritarian regime, that killed hundreds of thousands. When Koreans protested and he (the US backed dictator Rhee) resigned, the US then supported a military coup which lasted until another internal uprising could not be suppressed. Now one could argue that this was all for the long term goal of defending against communism, but if this is admitted not only is it conceded the US acted as an imperial to further its interests, but that it completely hypocritically destroyed democracy and liberal principles it apparently upholds to do so.

Let me but in. I, personally, dont know much about this argument although I have heard it raised a lot. Fact is, regardless, the US, after the war, extended total imperialistic control in the region. Japan was not its only satellite state - the Philippines, South Korea, Indonesia even small northern parts of Australia became military stand points with which the US could oversee the maintenance of its economic hegemony and control - just as Britain did a century earlier.

Well this would be if the goal of the empire state were mass benefits (read equal benefits for all of the empire), but they aren't. For the British Empire, for example, little research has been done on the question you put forward - is empire worth it. At the end of the day, it would seem British society racked up a huge debt, but made significant social and political gains. The manner is in which the empire prioritizes its gains and its loses that determines its 'success', as well as its general management and upkeep. The British spent 3% of GDP on military upkeep, whilst exporting capital, wealth and knowledge too and from its colonies. The conditions of empire are usually skewed to favor the wealthy elites that establish the system to begin with, and the US is really no different. In Iraq for example, the cost of the war has been transported directly to public debt, whilst the incomes - ie the business of war; armed recruitment, post-war reconstruction, military maintenance, energy resource consolidation etc - all these gains are privatized and almost exclusively reaped by the elites that invest in such moves. The average American gains where these businesses extend enough to tough the domestic scene - so some US oil companies expand to increase employment, and stock markets rise with greater security. Iraq isnt a good example to the benefits of empire - a better one would be Philippines or Haiti, where the agribusiness was capable of exploiting an already European exploited community to make a remarkable profit. Iraq shows the cost and nature of imperial ambitions.
But ultimately the extent at which the US empire is expanding is catching up with it. It has become too costly. Each year, once one factors in all military expenditures, the US spends over 1 trillion a year on its military upkeep and ventures. Unlike the British, US military expenditure accounts for nearly 5% of the nation's GDP. Coupled with its trade deficits formed from a lifestyle it could once, but can now no longer maintain or afford, the US empire is slowly hemorrhaging from economic insolvency, instability and, most especially, overstretch.

Politically speaking we are not considered by way of 'power politics' - which for many ignorant folk, like many on PF, is what makes a nation 'great'. Economically and socially Australia is a leader. If one looks at news looking into social and economic affairs Australia is often noted and discussed - increasingly more so as we rise above the rest. Although this being said we also have a huge trade deficit - but that's another story.

I hope to do so shortly. I apologize if my comments were too long, but I wanted to give you my sincerest reply.

Just to clarify, what part is that exactly? I feel we have been shipwrecked on an ideological note of 'goo vs evil' instead of whether the US in an empire or not, although I am increasingly feeling Ragu has admitted I am right on this point in an attempt to avoid it.

I'm trying, really I am.

 

yes I can readily agree with you here. it would appear that if the US does not consider major fiscal reform things could get very dicey for their hegemony. Actually I had once noticed that the conflict in Korea could be a god send for them as if the US becomes involved then china must as well. the debt to china may very well be wiped out. could be a very stressful few years for all involved for sure.

no, we do not, but for such a nation of size and population we do hold a rather respectable level in world politics. but that is not to say we are respected so much that our proverbial don't stink. just that we are heard and not just ignored..

I agree.
.

no need to apologise. I have selected a few comments that I can immediately comment on. but I will examine further your links and suggestions and may get back to you.

.

well yes that would seem to be the place. but it would also seem to be that we are still niggling over the hegemony of the US compared to the USSR. correct me if I am wrong but the questions is about imperialism hegemony of the US. so bogging down with who the best hegemony would be, regardless of who is good or evil.

 

Good point. At uni we discussed the reaction the US would have if China one say decided to 'cash in' - the ideas people put out were interesting, with war being a recurring theme.

Take you time, I understand.

Yes, and this seems almost entirely off topic to me, indeed it seems as if Ragu has almost conceded defeat in making such a divergence.

Yes.

Indeed such a point is basically irrelevant. I suggested to Ragu that if he wanted to debate that aspect - the nature of the US hegemony/imperialism, then I would be happy to do so, but it would require another thread.

 

your argument is that the US did not support the "legitimate" forces of democratic reform in greece post WWII....

my theme, do not hijack....you are hyper-critical of US policies during the cold war AS IF WE WERE IN A VACUUM, there was one major obstacle to US policy during those years.....USSR....
your attacks want to overlook the fact that we were in an epic battle against that EVIL, i'm sure you'll have plenty of examples of how the US backed this, or that, and these are of little or no consequence due to that threat from the USSR!!!!!

that threat was REAL, it active, and it was in the forefront of US foreign policy!!!!

again this is a repeat......
did we as Americans always promote democratic values, absolutely not....
did our ideals come into conflict with our self interest, absolutely....
once again REAL POLITIK....
and contrary to your proclamations; is the world better off that the US won the cold war.....ABSOLUTELY!!!!

once again, there were two superpowers post WWII....
the US using your own definition POST #1
IS NOT AN EMPIRE!!!!!
and the use of the word hegemony denotes political agenda and negativity....

are we powerful, influential, and the provider of PAX AMERICANA......YES!!!

lastly, we won the cold war, we are the superpower, it is even casually obvious to the communist observer, that when exercising international relations, each and every country acts in its own self-interest, (a fact that drove stalin mad)
the US is no exception....
it just so happens that the self-interest of America is and was in the best interest of every other non-communist state in the post WWII world....
we saved the world from the spectre of naziism, and communism....
to diminish our "good" for this world is ludicrous, irregardless if mega "likes" that term....IT IS FACT!!!!!

in 44, i think you'd have to address the british.....
i've illustrated on several posts the support the greek communists received from the comintern in 36, the cominform post WWII...., the bulgarians, slavs, albanians....

please already.....
interesting addendum above in BOLD

sans funneling aid, channeling weapons, giving guidance, and promoting and encouraging the export of anarchy in france, italy, greece and turkey post WWII, i guess the soviets are completely innocent and absolved...(in your mind)
is this going to be your tact?
in korea?
"show me where the soviets directed action during the korean war?
the cold war was an struggle of ideals, one good, one bad....

 

you cited chalmer's "new" definition of imperialism as your's!!!!
and under that definition, you have tried to make your case.....you fail!!!!

typical revisionism, ex post facto reworking of facts to opinion to fulfill an agenda....its embarrassing to think that this is all you got?
think of it, youd be elated if i'd simply agree with you that the US is and imperial hegemony, but i won't because its simply NOT TRUE!!!!
We started in GREECE(and are still there)
"to the victors go the spoils"
post WWII victors ceded areas control to the allied nations.....
greece was given to the brits initially....
when it became apparent that the brits did not have the ability to restabilize greece, ENTER the US, once again(cleaning up someone elses mess)!!!
why didn't the brits ask for help from the soviets?
what was happening in the post WWII world?
had the soviets become in essence a imperial hegemony already?(now when using that same definition and applying it to the soviets, doesn't it neatly fit) (doesn't it?)
leftist communists, one of several partisan groups who rebelled against german occupation, militantly rejected all british attempts to restabilize postwar greece....
truman, faced with the aggressive policy and design of soviet expansion which included the geo-political aim to control warm-sea ports created the policy of containing that expansion....
this was the primary objective of all US policy makers in variable degrees through reagan....
it was brilliant policy, the outlook of the balkans and quite possibly turkey going RED was UNACCEPTABLE immediately following WWII!!!!
that is the FACT!!!!
again:
"if it looks like it, tastes like it, feels like it, than it is it"

 

how is this turned against me, i simply asked if we can or cannot use those sites....
i searched marxists sites in order to give you their impression of US policy during postwar greece, as you read, they boasted of creating instability and anarchy, and acceptance of the comintern's support and aid prior to WWII, and after when these same "stalinists" (their word) agreed to accept the objectives of the soviet created cominform....
that was their perspective, which, if you agreed and used as acceptable, must go into the record, further devastating your claim of soviet absolution.....

once again, you credit gorbachov, when it is historically innaccurate....
"peace through strength"
soviets could no longer compete militarily, and even though SDI, was this immense BLUFF, gorbachov and his politburo acquiesced.....
they LOSE

i'm currently covered in 4 feet of snow.....

we are not imperialistic, for the umpteenth time, we are the most powerfull nation that ever existed and we are not an empire, old schoolers....
maybe we should be, maybe the world would be even better if we were and empire, surely ther'd be even less hostility....but we are not....
does our policy reflect our own self interest, I HOPE SO?
does aussie policy reflect their own self-interest, i certainly hope so....
did soviet policy reflect their own self-interest, it certainly did....
but the major difference is and was that US self-interest is democracy, and fundamental rights for all humanity, and peace and stability in regional conflicts...
peace and stability creates prosperity for all, if they opt in....

has our policy and vision for these ideals been in conflict, absolutely!!!
have we supported some "bad" dudes, absolutely!!!
have we undermined communist uprisings in china, korea, france, italy, greece and turkey etc.... absolutely!!!!
do we interfere to promote our self-interest....absolutely!!!!
it our self-interest, the world's self-interest.....absolutely!!!
is the world a better place because maintain the peace.....absolutely

are we an empire....ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

the US wanted to contain the spread of communism....
if that ultimately meant invading the peloponesseus, yes!!!

justified, (the absolutely right thing to do)

yes!!!

 

There hasen't been any question of US hegemony in the ME since the late 1930s.

Hitler wanted control of all the oilfields from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.. It was called Plan Orient.

Remember, the Italians bombed oil facilities in Bahrain and Dhahran in November of 1941 BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

 

So you admit the US exercised controlling power over states it deemed 'unstable'?

So you admit, the US is an imperial hegemon?

Why not?

No word 'denoted negativity', as I have used.

Irrelevant to the thread.

I already showed you that regardless of 44, in the 60s the US came back to install a FASCIST.

They were both bad, but in saying this you have conceded the US is an imperial hegemon.

 

No I didn't, I merely showed how an empire - which is defined as a nation that has CONTROL of others, can be analyzed in the way it has based. It isnt a "new" definition, its the same as the old.

Where? I have won - you have proven my points.

So you admit the US exercised control over states during the Cold war?

 

Totally irrelevant now, especially since I've already proven you wrong - with your own sources.

But you have admitted this wasn't. Even in your above post you admitted the US stopped democracy, subjected human rights and didn't bring peace where it deemed war was necessary. You are contradicting yourself.

I said REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS JUSTIFIED (SINCE THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD) - You agree with me that the US exercised its strength to interfere and control Greek politics to further its own goals? YES OR NO?!?

 

are we considering if the US is imperalistic now or in the past. I note that the link you provided show actions and policy at the end of conflicts. I have not gotten to yuor other suggestion yet. it just occurred to me that the first only seem to cover a relatively short period of the foreign policy of the US.

I may be showing my ignorance here, but thatis why I find it interesting.

 

isn't it funny when i clearly make repeated points that appropriately interpret history and JUSTIFY American actions during the cold war, they are deemed irrelevant, why is that?
ABSOLUTELY, of course 1,000%, as i've stated from the first or second or third post, AMERICAN foreign policy is based on the national self-interest of AMERICA....
you repeatedly point out the obvious!!!!
the issue seems to be your persistant attempt to label that self-interest negatively suggesting your underlying anti-American tact which is why we are hear in the first place....
i don't know how many times i have to repeat this, so i'll do it one more time:
Imperialism-
definition:
1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
2. domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination
cultural imperialism
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featu...naryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=imperialism

these policies of containment during the post war world WERE JUSTIFIED, which makes them totally relevant to our discussion!!!
led by America the free world was in an epic, ideological battle against the forces of evil, which represented world-wide political, economic and social oppression.....

how would the world be better off if in fact your communists won the cold war?

we are/were not an empire!
because it denotes an agenda, hegemony has traditionally carried negative connotation, which again promotes your agenda, that stigma doesn't hunt!!!!
is America influential in international politics, yes(obvious)
has the world benefitted from our positive expression of ideals, yes(obvious)
have we supported less than desirable regimes in lieu of our ideals, (obvious)
at times, has those policies been in conflict, (obvious)

are you better off than you were 70 years ago, (obvious)