1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by MegadethFan, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MegadethFan and The_Big_Ragu are two really smart guys who share entirely opposing views on this issue. This thread was designed as means for these two intellectual heavy weights to battle it out, but other outside in puts are ok as well.
    MegadethFan will be arguing in the affirmative of this issue - the the US is an imperial empire, whilst The Big Ragu will be arguing in the negative; opposed to this idea.

    The rules are; no ad-hominem arguments, no non-sequiturs and any other logical fallacies that arise during debates.

    My Contention;
    Well, first we need to define imperial hegemon; which I think simply means a hegemonic state with tendency to exercise imperial control and action.

    Hegemon;
    hegemon - a leading or paramount power
    Imperial;
    imperial -
    1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.
    2. Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.
    3.a. Having supreme authority; sovereign.
    b. Regal; majestic.

    4. Outstanding in size or quality.
    5. Of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and measures.

    I beleive the United States is a hegemonic superpower that, since its inception, but particularly since WW2 and the initiation of the Cold War, has furthered a continuous foreign policy intended for one purpose - total control and hegemonic domination of enough regions, and countries to establish itself as an unquestionable world power and thus a imperial hegemon. It has done this through regime changes, indirect and direct intervention in state affairs; opposed democracy where required, destroyed economies and entire nations where required and exercised ruthless control over regions vital to its agenda.

    My Argument;

    (Taken from Chomsky's debate with Richard Perle, this thoroughly outlines my case. The full unedited text can be read here; http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1988----.htm)

    The United States emerged from World War II in a position of global power with few, if any historical precedents, and US elites were well aware of the fact. Through the 1940s, they carried out sophisticated geopolitical planning -- which is on record, to fashion a global order that would be responsive to their interests. During the war, top State Department planners, carried out extensive studies with the Council on Foreign Relations to develop the general outlines of global policy, later applied to particular regions.
    They 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.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. 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 day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
    (Memo PPS23 by George Kennan. Full text can be read here;
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan)

    My examples;
    The US has exercised the militarist capacities of its foreign policy multiple times. Following the demise of the Third Reich, the US assisted its colonial allies in resisting legitimate local forces in Greece (suppressing anti-fascist forces), Italy (supported General Bologlia who was elected by the Fascist Grand Council of Italy as Prime Minister whilst Victor Emmanuel III retained his occupation that he had threw out the war) and France (where Admiral Jean Louis Xavier François Darlan was installed as High Commissioner of France for North and West Africa by Eisenhower - he was once Prime Minister of Vichy France). That is just in Europe of course.
    Asia in the immediate post war era saw US governmental construction in Japan, South Korea, Philippines etc all according to US power interests (both suppressed democratic movements with the help of government oppression and CIA propaganda subversion of the voting process).

    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, Turkey, Romania, Philippines, South Africa etc.

    I leave you to pick one particular example for discussion.
    The US' actions however, have always been motivated by one goal - power and control for US preservation. Whether such goals consequently encourage democratic, liberal or authoritarian and oppressive regimes does not really matter, as long as they keep control of the domestic arena and act in the wishes of the US. United States foreign policy makers are entirely and singularly concerned with US hegemony and nothing else. It exercises complete and dominating control, simply to further its agenda just as an empire, leading as a hegemon both economically and militarily.
    This of course doesn't mean the US public do not oppose such goals or intents, the problem is most do not know about such initiatives or do not comprehend the nature of the place of the US in world affairs.
     
  2. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i'm gonna surprise you and some-what agree with the assertion.....
    remember the environment post-WWII;
    two superpowers emerged post WWII; that were ideological as well as political enemies!!!!
    my disagreement will rest with the worlds "other option" post WWII, our communist friends in the USSR
    it was the stated proclamation of the "communist international"; comintern 1919
    to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."

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

    the USSR post 1920 became an exporter of the "violent overthrow of capitalism"
    not my words....
    Lenin stated, "it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of contemporary society."

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

    keep in mind, every politburo, every premier of the USSR lenin through breshnev, expressed the inevitability overthrow of capitalism as their modus operendi....
    only the WWII interlude, did the comintern take a back seat....

    so where you see freedom fighters in greece, post WWII, the US and west saw communism, and communist expansion.....

    so lets start with keenan/truman/marshall and the Truman Doctrine and the goal of "containing" the SPREAD of communism....
    notice who is on the offensive in our scenario, communism....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine
    the stated goal of the truman plan and American foreign policy probably since is the "containing" of communism
    "the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
    again, aggressor USSR, defender USA
    so lets start in Greece:
    you stated;
    The US has exercised the militarist capacities of its foreign policy multiple times. Following the demise of the Third Reich, the US assisted its colonial allies in resisting legitimate local forces in Greece (suppressing anti-fascist forces)

    lets emphasize your term...."legitimate local forces in Greece"
    does that include the yugoslavian, bulgarian communists?
    whowere undeniably supported by the puppet master the USSR, the communists led an unsuccessful attempt to expand its influence....

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

    this is an easy one....
    Truman saw it for what it was, soviet expansion, it need to be stopped, it was!!!
    win!!!
     
  3. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, so the Cold War, yep I know it ;). But anyway, continue...

    Let me but in here;
    1. Yes, I totally agree most communist sought internationalist social revolution, hence this could provide justification, or at least motive in US action.
    2. However, the USSR did not pursue this line of thinking for ever and met great US hostility when it attempted to quell the ideas of revolution that had propelled it into the spot light of the cold war.
    3. In understanding whether the US is an empire or not, then requires we both look at US foreign policy, in action and thought, before and after the cold war and the events within the cold war that can identify whether the US indeed sought to be imperialistic, or was propelled such a dominant position due to circumstance - this point I will readdress later.

    You argue that the US acted defensively, simply on the basis US doctrinal headliners stated it that way. To confirm this however requires we analyze US action and confirm this was indeed their motive and inspiration of action.
    As you raise the Truman Doctrine as a central point, I will address this now.
    Now one may argue the US sincerely feared the USSR, but this would be false. What the US feared in the post war era, was not the USSR, but the threat to its world status as a leading superpower. This is why the US stood on its own supposed ideals in order to subvert any movement that may be resistant, and resistant in such a way as to have the backing of a substantial political player - ie the USSR. For this reason the idea of 'communism spreading' like the domino theory etc, were rather distractions in the US play to justify its maintenance of world control than sincere concerns. This has been widely recognized by leading scholars. Samuel Huntington explained how the real challenge to post war administrations, like that under Truman was that they "may have to sell [military action and intervention] in such a way as to create the impression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting." In requiring the same action, amongst later admins, Huntington notes; "This is what the United states has done ever since Truman."
    (Samuel Huntington, International security - 1981)
    Noam Chomsky notes ' historian Arno Mayer's immediate post 9/11 observation that since 1947, "America has been the chief perpetrator of 'pre-emptive' state terror" and innumerable other "'rogue' actions", causing immense harm, "always in the name of democracy, liberty, and justice." '
    (pg 109, Failed States)
    The US, not only stepped on democracy wherever it requires; fundamentally destroying any semblance of its "righteousness" and "justice" to begin with - which an be seen in Italy, Japan, South Korea etc where elections were rigged, and the CIA played a serious presence in ensuring Washington's selected supporters were empowered - but it also pursued equally evil and immoral positions as the early USSR. It, rather than supporting democracy, whether this led to communist representatives or not (after all this would mean they are legally and morally upright - not entertaining revolutionary mentality as you earlier described), it instead, again all its own principles, beliefs and justice itself, supported fascists and neo-Nazi sympathizers, and if not these trusted totalitarian oppressors, then authoritarians and tyrants of lesser breed - all simply with the goal to retain power. This fact is confirmed when analyzing almost any situation the US engaged in extensively, before and after Truman.

    Now one might argue "the US had to do this because of the threat it faced", but this in itself is a flawed assertion, since, as your own explanations indicate, Soviet sympathizers would be revolutionary and destroy the political process - something none of the movements the US opposed attempted to do.
     
  4. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, let address Greece.
    First the point of local resistance;
    The only resistance forces in Greece - were Greek, there were no foreign troops, except the British at the end of the war.
    The resistance groups fought against the Nazis during the occupation during the second world war. In 1944, the main resistance coalition, headed by communists - the National Liberation Front, formed a government in the freed areas of liberated regions, called the "Political Committee of National Liberation" (PEEA), which held free and fair elections with 1 million people participating - the first in Greece to allow women to vote. This shows they were not dictators. At the end, the British returned to take control, but fired upon peaceful protesters who were seeking political representation of these resistance groups.
    Under the now occupation of the British, ex-resistance fighters formed a new movement, which boycotted elections, but which was defeated by the US backing the newly installed government. Several massacres ensured as US aid poured in to the radically right wing government.

    Second now is the "threat". You raised Yugoslavia - it is worth noting that whilst this nation and the majority resistance groups were allied, they (Yugoslavs) slowly and then out rightly (1948) shifted political allegiance AWAY from the USSR - hence there was no actual threat of USSR domination in Greece.
    That being said, the US did not hold elections and allow local groups to follow the democratic, liberal process, they instead destroyed democracy and any semblance of a chance for liberty and installed fascists!
    Greece is a prime example of US mentality by way of control - instead of allowing democracy to emerge it continued to support the rise of fascism - it oversaw the first reconstitution of fascism in Europe, in Greece in 1967. Not only this but the US supported this regime until it was overthrown by the populace in 1974.

    Greece is a prime example that shows how the US, does not really care for democracy - it simply cares for control. But not any control, it needs unwavering control. This means it had to oppose even slight socialist groups, no matter their relations with the USSR because it needed regimes that would bow to its demands and interests. Hence the US supported fascists, neo-nazi sympathizers and authoritarians.
    (See your source if you wish to clarify this information)

    But lets not look completely at Greece. Lets look at far more blatant and obvious examples that I mentioned in regards to Truman.

    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).
    Unearthing War’s Horrors Years Later in South Korea

    Also look, to Japan.
    The US made extensive efforts to curb democracy, by hunting down diisident groups and spreading porpoganda. 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 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.
     
  5. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's the key sentence of the entire long spiel.

    The US seeks merely to foster conditions that allow for private capitalistic enterprise linked to the US. Given a choice between that or a communist enterprise linked to the Soviet Union which one would any American choose?

    Gotta (*)(*)(*)(*)ing problem with that??

    There may be a lot of ignorant Americans out there who constantly claim the usual "stars and stripes, yay yay" mantra. I'm not one of them.

    I know fully well what my nation has done and I FULLY WELL APPROVE (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU PEOPLE! I'm a Hobbesian I absolutely approve of any and all covert methods short of all out war of conquest to expand and maintain my nation's powerbase!

    Who are YOU (*)(*)(*)(*)ING PEOPLE to question the most poweful capitalist force to ever land on this planet? Seriously?

    "The business of the American People is Business" firs tand foremost?

    So what if we're a capitalist empire of sorts? I DON'T CARE I'M PROUD of that capitalist empire. We don't need the moral approval of the international community because in the end of it, you are just our economic VASSALS.

    We all need eachother on a fundamental level, but we need you a lot less than you people need us.

    If some government thinks it can just say screw you and go to our mortal enemies the Soviets then yes, we would drop that government on a dime. (*)(*)(*)(*) you, you can take our money or smell our powder and steel!

    To BAD, What are you going to do about it?

    Best part is, we are going to KEEP doing it until the day someone else gets big enough and bad enough to stop us.

    China isn't anywhere near that yet.

    HOBBES you know who he is right? "It is the fate of all nation states to continually expand and maintain their power."

    You think we Americans take the above as criticism but we don't. We just shrug and say "(*)(*)(*)(*) YOU!" and keep on buggering the world and when little terrorist bees sting us we swat them, take our revenge and go back to buggering the world and there isn't (*)(*)(*)(*) Noam Chomsky or anyone else in Europe or China can do about it except (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) on forums here and whine on the world media to the UN. LOL LOL

    Grow some balls, build a military and take us out if you want us gone, otherwise enjoy the buggering!


    That's the whole POINT OF MY PRIDE, if my nation's elites were smart enough to conquer the world without a major war of conquest (actually we did, it was called World War II) and left two huge empires AND WE WON! GOOD! (*)(*)(*)(*) USSR and (*)(*)(*)(*) anyone who thinks it's immoral. When it comes to geo politics there is no morality but that which you create for yourself. It was either us or the Soviets. To bad your side didn't win and mine did. I decide the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing history!
    [​IMG]
     
  6. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the policy of historical or dialectical materialism DID provide justification for US policy post WWII!!!!
    post WWII, the US emerged as the worlds economic superpower, those are undeniable facts, and before 1949, we were the worlds only nuclear power!!!!
    imperialistic?
    debatable, did we pressure or influence, yes we did....
    your reproach, seems to take the position that America was in a vaccuum, that we were the protagonist, it is simply not true, irregardless of chomsky, the facts are obvious, the USSR actively sought to destroy capitalism,
    some call the USSR, a terrorist state, i agree.....
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=13975
    i will enjoy looking at US Foreign policy, but we can't do it, by assuming that we acted without reason and CAUSE, as you'd like to....
    our policy was driven by "containing" the spread and influence of an aggressor, the USSR, did this policy give us the luxury of always being able to choose the right pawn, or take out the right castle, at the appropriate time, HELL NO, but left with the undeniable option of communist aggression, the US did the best they could....
    and the option was what would of been undeniable worse for the entire world!!!!
    in many cases we are the "beacon on the hill", but in some we are not, i will not deny it, but i also will not apologize for it, if you take into account chomsky's option, (and your's unfortunately)
    so lets take a look at that option:

    In 1932-3, Stalin and his butchers deliberately starved to death around 7 million utterly innocent men, women and little children, mainly in the Ukraine.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
    robert conquest's estimations that stalin murdered 5 million between 1935-38....
    http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html
    how about stalin's policies 1946-47 which caused death to 1.5 million more....
    the katyn massacre of poles....
    the list goes on and on, but this was the "option"

    So the world post WWII had Truman and stalin,
    stalin's post war pograms of death continued;
    the ukraine, led by the butcher of the ukraine nikita krushchev
    http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-nikita-khrushchev.htm

    need i go on, i think you get the point....

    How is it false...
    you have two superpowers emerging after wwII...
    the USSR, the aggressor, the true hegemony, stood as the worlds anti-theses to capitalism....
    this is fact, as real to history as it was to the leaders who breathed and fought that terror.....
    they understood soviet motives succinctly, and checked soviet expansion when and where they could.....

    the victory of America post WWII, made democracy, capitalism the status quo, any activities to subvert the status quo, is of course subversive.....
    how did truman sell the unprovoked september attack of the NK across the UN recognized 38th parallel?
    as part of a UN mandate, the US was their, as we are today, to deter attack.....
    yet, the NK attacked with the sanction of whom?
    noam chomsky is wrong.....
    causing immense harm as opposed to stalin?
    mao?
    we do stand for democracy and freedom, as opposed to the USSR....
    what freedoms did they impart on their peoples, on their conquered peoples...
    you choose....which would of been worse, a world dominated by communism, oppression....
    you should give omnithanks, capitalism won!!!
    America won!!!!
    greece first!!!!
    totally NOT a flawed assertion....
     
  7. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree, but anyway....

    The thing is it wasn't a simple 'choice'. This policy has been America's goal before, during and after the rise of the Soviet Union. Would you like me to expand on this point?

    I have a problem with your reasoning, yes. If that were that simple, yes I would agree, but it isn't.

    Ok....

    Then you are an imperialist and concede my point that America is an imperial hegemon.

    Who are we not?

    Not really, at least not when it comes to upper thresholds of US power.

    You shouldn't be. Its based on a lot of anti-capitalist philosophy and crime.

    You realize the US hegemonic system is not capitalist? Its state-capitalist - it has betrayed almost all of the fundamental theories of capitalism - most especially through its military interventionism to spread market supremacy.

    Actually Australia doesn't need the US at all. We could seriously speaking, find similar export markets in Europe. China takes the majority of our national resources, so that is fine, and our major source of wealth is internal services sector.

    But many never said screw you to the US anyway. Also, what is so bad about the USSR compared to the US? Stalin was the most evil prominent leader in history to be sure, but what is the problem with majority supported socialist regimes emerging? ie what is the problem with democracy?

    You need to take a chill pill. Swearing doesn't improve your arguments and in fact devalues your position.

    Well some opted for 9/11. I guess you approve hey, being Hobbesian fool form the 17th century?

    Not yet, but it will be. I guess you concede the fact the US is a imperialist hegemon. Thanks for playing.

    If you beleive that so ardently as you do, then you are a text book fascist my friend.

    Thanks for conceding my point. Thanks for playing. LOL Good to see you supported Hitler, Mao, etc. By your logic, the USSR was jsut as good as the US until 89.

    I feel sorry you are so deluded. You realize your total nationalistic power crazed notions of 'state-power is all' is total fascist logic? Obviously not.

    But at least you admit I am right. Thanks and bye. Thank God the Big Ragu is more sane than that.
     
  8. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, all the more reason why you took the role of an imperial hegemon.

    I would also agree the USSR was a terrorist state - but so was the US, it has waged many proxy wars and wars of terror - most notable was Reagan's in Nicaragua. Now you say her that the facts show the US was acting simply against the USSR, now I would agree - but where I disagree is in your assertion that it was simply to protect the world form communism - this is not true, it was to protect ITS interests, ie total control and power, form the USSR. It didn't care for the people of the world or for legitimate social forces, it simply wanted to keep control, which the USSR threatened. This is seen, as I showed, through resistance groups that were crushed by the US, but which either 1. Had no connection to the USSR, and/or 2. Used democratic, liberal systems and were thus not a serious threat, and/or 3. Were nationalist forces, meaning the US was opposing nationalist, democratic movements, constituting as an imperial force. Other than its own hegemonic power, which I agree to, you have not shown how the USSR actually threatened the US, let alone through these nations. I have hwoever shown, through facts, figures and historians that my assertion is correct.

    I never said you didn't act without cause - I said the cause was for the US to keep its imperialistic control for its own interests.

    But why would you do this by destroying democracy, and movements that had nothing to do with the USSR and instituting regimes that were just as bad? That makes no sense. It makes far more sense if the US simply sought to preserve its own hegemony.

    Actually it did, since most of these groups fought along side you in the second world war as in the case of Greece and Italy. In South Korea you instituted an authoritarian regime, with full knowledge of its brutality.

    Not really. The USSR, as was known by Washington by the 60s, was not only failing economically, but was also incapable of keeping up with the escalation of militarization.

    Where was this option in Greece? Where was this option in South Korea? Where was this option in Guatemala? Where was this option in El Salvador? Where was this option in Iran? The US intervened in all these places but no such group as you described existed. Clearly the US was not acting simply to stop the USSR but rather to preserve its own imperial power.

    Well actually the US was breaking just as many rules of capitalism and indeed has not seen capitalism at all, rather state-capitalism. Even Reagan totally violated capitalist doctrine even though he is espoused as the conservative godfather of modern US politics.
    Similarly you have no explained how the USSR was the aggressor. Sure it had satellite states around it, but they were not extending their borders. The US on the other hand, routinely, as I have shown, intervened in other countries to expand its military, economic and political hegemony - by the way these are totally anti-capitalist actions.

    Not as I showed. I even took quotes form post war planners. Kennan clearly indicated the US' primary goal is its own power. Defence against the USSR was merely another matter but the prevailing goal was maintenance of US hegemony. That meant stepping out local resistance and national movements - no better than the USSR itself.

    And undertook there own expansion to expand their own power. This has continued with the demise of the Soviet Union - evidence that the USSR was not the primary goal of US foreign policy action.

    Again, the US stifled democracy in many countries so this is not true.

    Again, I showed how the US stepped entirely on capitalism both in fundamental and general aspects of its core philosophy.

    But not illegal or immoral. The US instituted fascists and authoritarians! Clearly it sought only control - not freedom for the world.

    And yet in the South bit created its own authoritarian dictatorship.

    But the US supported the authoritarian dictatorship of Rhee BEFORE the North Invaded -and then after as well. Even when the South Koreans wanted a democratic sovereign state, the US supported the military in staging a coup and taking control.

    How?

    How were Stalin and Mao doing anything in Greece, Guatemala, South Korea or Honduras?
    Why could the US not support democracy in these regions? The answer is simply - because democracy meant the US hegemon would be denied its access to control and power.

    Clearly not. You opposed democracy in all the examples I gave - Guatemala, South Korea, Greece, Iran, Honduras etc - and in ALL of these you supported the rise and control of ILLIBERAL, backward, corrupt and authoritarian regimes.

    No, capitalism was put on the back burner.

    Indeed it did, but this was not a good thing, at least not for the world in question.

    Go ahead, I just refuted your points. You need to keep it in context as well - look to South Korea and Japan, since they are good examples as well. Also look to Latin America for extensive imperialist action by the US.

    Yes it is, as I have shown.
     
  9. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i'm sorry was that ortega's nicaragua?
    (see monroe doctrine)
    roosevelt corallary reads:
    All that this country desires is that the other republics on this continent shall be happy and prosperous; and they cannot be happy and prosperous unless they maintain order within their boundaries and behave with a just regard for their obligations toward outsiders.
    reagan saw the nicaraguan issue clearly through the eyes of the cold war!

    later

    i agree, we could of cared less about the who, the what, the where, in most instances, we stood in the way of communist expansion and aggression, and
    the world IS a better place for this!
    i agree, the world saw two superpowers, the world had 2 options
    one side was "soviet", overtly oppressive, NOT DEMOCRATIC, and definately NOT capitalist, the other was America
    you continue to akwardly proclaim that we were just as bad, if not worse than the former, this is totally NOT true, as i've said before, were we angels, or perfect, NOT, BUT we were a FAR better alternative than soviet sponsored communism
    give me that much!
    looking at the post WWII world landscape, knowing what we do know, now
    it is easy to criticize, it is easy to blame, America, because we are a democracy,
    All of our chips are available for the world to see
    you don't hear about the tens of millions MURDERED throughout post WWII, by the soviet hegemony.
    but complain that the US supported the status quo
    as opposed to NOT supporting, "legitimate" (your words) movements within greece or south korea
    "legitimate" to whom? the communists
    was the US fooled by the ability of communist expansion, yes, especially after ALL of eastern europe fell within the "iron curtain" post WWII
    were we going to "lose" or be fooled again, not on our watch!
    US policy post 1949 especially(fall of china and USSR becoming nuclear) saw the world as two
    our policy WAS driven towards "containing" communism!
    does this policy conveniently fit into your pro "other" argument?
    i don't see it at all!
    the "other" is bad, was bad, and would of been a horrible consequence of US weakness
    at the time, the choice was clear, people ARE better off for that US sponsored clarity!

    this is simply not true
    resistance groups, by every definition must "resist" the status quo, post wwII saw western democracy AS the status quo
    if you think that the soviets did not use each nations democratic institutions to foment insurrection
    this goes against the stated goal of the comintern!

    if nationalist groups embraced communism, and were supported by the soviets, i.e. greece and south korea, they were crushed!
    when truman "lost" china to the mao "nationalists", this was seen as a major blow.
    just because it says it, doesn't make it so

    arms race, do i need to show you how the proliferation of nuclear warheads and expansion of communism threatened the very existence of HUMANITY?

    the cause was justified!
    you stated earlier that it was not
    i guess again, i agree
    we acted to protect our own self-interest
    doesn't everybody?
    didn't the soviets?
    i guess you'll have to look at this, as if the US was not in a vaccuum,
    we were not alone
    what was omnipresent was that "option"
    and yes they were the aggressor!
    this is why Truman in a speech to Congress proclaimed US policy to resist expansion by the Soviet Union.
    "to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."
    http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/TRUMAN2.html

    imagined or real, the perceptions of soviet aggression was why we "countered" aggression

    its called "real politik"
    sometimes it is safer, easier to maintain strength through strength
    "when god gives you nothing but lemons"
    again, we were not perfect, but the alternative was-WORSE!
    contrary to your incessant claims, communism was NOT a better alternative
    and with our victory.... the world gains unprecedented wealth and technology that wouldn't of occurred had the wrong side won

    greece:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/greek.htm
    the comintern' and its influence of the Greek left:
    SEKE in April 1920, decided to affiliate with Comintern, an international Communist organisation founded in Moscow, the party was renamed the Communist Party of Greece and adopted the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Greece
    "peace through strength" the reagan doctrine!
    communism is a fail, central economic planning and oppression of political and social rights is an epic fail
    (see gorbachov) domestic reforms:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachov

    is it the word imperial that your stuck on?
    the root imperial comes from the power given to roman magistrates "imperium" which gives the holder absolute power
    the US by all definition does not have imperium
    our power is checked, internationally through the UN, and locally through our own checks and balances

    the design of those satellite states IS an expansion of their borders
    where they politically, socially and economically controlled with an "iron fist" their hegemonic world view
    ask the peoples of eastern europe whether or not this was false
    in turn
    ask the peoples of western europe if they feel the same, in kind, of the US

    again, anti-communism, was our interest
    did this me the self-preservation of power, yes, and already stated that i accepted this premise,but you must keep your eye on the "option" available

    having a world free of antagonists, i.e. soviet sponsored destruction of your own being was the goal of US policy decision makers, nothing more, nothing less
    would the US and the world benefit from this policy, yes, does the US become stronger if they do not have to spend all their time/energy and resources "containing" communism, yes it will
    but has the world benefitted, YES it did!!!
    1980-2000, the world saw unprecedented expansion of wealth
    where did we see limited wealth?

    in those remaining communist countries(sans china)
    clearly in some instances the US did not do the right thing, we have supported the conservative element, but that in and of itself is what we do
    status quo by nature is "conservative", we are conservative
    clearly the communists lent itself to the liberal pro-democratic in name only element
    peoples republic of North Korea(again name only)
    remember the "option"
    what's in south korea today?
    what's in north korea today?
    who supports whom?

    stalin was interfering in greece
    north korea does not fart before it got approval from bejiing

    (see above)
    you are wrong
    communism is an epic fail, if it was a success, the USSR would of survived
    it died!!!
    we are still in greece?
    i have 3 complaints:
    too much to respond to(i had to cut out your quotes-too long)
    too long to write
    my freakin patriots lost!
     
  10. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nicaragua is a very good example of US hegemony. I dont have time now to write a brief summary of US action in the country, but I will post a small reply about Nicaragua and the US later on. For now I'll just address the rest of this post.

    Is it really a better place? I would argue it isnt for all those you took advantage of to secure your own power. For many the world is not a 'better' place - its just not as bad. The Cold war was a conflict between twp empires - one was bound to win because it was the more stronger, not because it was more righteous.

    But America supported oppressive, undemocratic, uncapitalistic nations anyway! They even created said governments and put them in power!

    Not worse, but just as bad for the people involved. I have not states this awkwardly, perhaps not as clearly as if I were to write an essay on the matter, but I have given plenty of examples.

    You were not angels, you were imperial troops serving the interests of your own hegemon - like the of the USSR.

    Yes you do hear about them. Also this is increasingly irrelevant to this debate. You seem to be almost conceding my point - saying the USSR is also a hegemon, which I agree with, does not change the fact the US was ALSO a hegemon.

    No legitimate to the people - democracy, liberty - America clearly did not support these ideals.

    Indeed, as I showed the groups in Greece and Korea - where democracy was suppressed, had no connections to revolutionary socialism, let alone the USSR.

    But they weren't supported by the USSR, so this argument is false.

    No because there also the US was the greater threat. It was Reagan's action that saw the Dooms Day clock reach its closest point. The Cuban Missile crises only happened because the US deployed missiles in Turkey. There again, the US was the aggressor.

    So you admit the US is a hegemon?

    The Communists in Greece moved away form allegiance to the USSR and fostered support form the more independent Yugoslav socialists. This led to a complete split during the civil war - the Tito-Stalin split.
     
  11. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gorbachev ended the cold war, not Reagan.

    Really? In fact you make a good point by raising the UN. The US is not checked by anyone and acts totally unilaterally and as an imperial power. This is emphasized by the UN - the US was found guilty of war crimes by the ICJ, a body of the UN, but the US simply ignored the ruling.

    The US had the same satellite states - and still has them. I have already listed them, do I need to go through it again?

    Democracy because people resisted US backed rule - anti-US sentiment is high, if you hadn't noticed in SK.

    The USSR supported NK authoritarian and the US supported South authoritarians. They did it also in Vietnam. The US was as bad as the USSR.

    Prove it.
    north korea does not fart before it got approval from bejiing[/QUOTE]
    So?

    You went back in 67 to institute the first fascist regime in Europe since ww2.

    Fair enough.

    To recap, it seems your entire argument is this;
    The US had to place itself as a controlling state to protect form the USSR. According to you, its only objective was to defend from Soviet aggression.
    But if this were true, US action after the Cold War, and US action independent of the Cold War should show the US is a peaceful, democratic, liberal country should it not? So lets analyze AFTER the Cold War to confirm this;

    Lets look at the Middle East. Lets look at South East Asia. Lets look at South America. Lets look at the Grand Area fifty years after it was planned for US supremacy.
    Lets look at the latest coups after the Cold War and US support for UNDEMOCRATIC, ILLIBERAL, AUTHORITARIAN regimes in these areas, and lets look at American SUPPRESSION of democracy.

    The Cold War ended in 91, with the USSR opening itself to the world, and being met with the realization it was militarily and economically destroyed. With this knowledge the US had no reason to maintain its superpower hegemony - yet it did!
    Today, whilst it claims to support 'freedom and democracy' in the middle east, it still financially and militarily supports the authoritarian dictatorship in Egypt and the undemocratic religio-political authoritarian regime of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, whilst giving arms to the military regime in Pakistan. In the last decade alone it has supported military uprisings and authoritarian groups in Venezuela, Honduras and Haiti.
    Not only this but the US has retained the upkeep of its hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world and the near 800 military facilities it owns across international land.
    This are not the actions of some peaceful, capitalist democracy that seeks nothing but self preservation. These are the actions of an imperial hegemon that seeks entirely to maintain its own power.
     
  12. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So?


    You went back in 67 to institute the first fascist regime in Europe since ww2.


    Fair enough.

    Go tell it to Hobbes.
     
  13. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what?

    Go tell someone who cares what you think mate, I'm not interested in your fascism.
     
    Heroclitus and (deleted member) like this.
  14. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,922
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fascism how?

    Becuase I put "my own kind" first above all other people's in the world?

    That's what a proper nationalist patriot does. Puts his nation above the needs of others. I'm not a citizen of the globe. I'm an American. I don't want to be a part of your nasty little global community full of communists/socialists/anti-corporate haters and societal rejects in a land that capitalism forgot.
     
  15. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so are we to feel guilty, because we won, by containing the spread of communism?
    ABSOLUTELY OF COURSE we are better!!!!!
    and the global community is better!!!!
    lets break this down:
    two superpowers; USA v USSR
    if USSR won the cold war, you are contending that the world would be better?
    please explain how the world would be better economically, politically and socially living under the oppression, and economic malaise of communism, driving volga's to work....
    have you heard of the kitchen debates?
    "we will bury you" epic fail!!!!
    explain how the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....
    i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....
    china, n.korea, and the peoples republic of cambridge, massachusetts....just to name a few, in name only's!!!!
    yes we did, have not denied it....
    you cited korea, what is south korea today?
    who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
    and who support south korea?
    rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
    kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms?

    by akward i meant that your brain has interfered with your heart....
    you let your animous for our great bastion of liberty/democracy/freedom cloud what is the truth....
    thats ok, school is in session!!!!

    we were not angels, agreed, but WE were a far better alternative to the evil of USSR!!!!
    again, imperial, does not apply....
    imperial denotes the political and military control of a territory....
    not applicable....
    did we gain power, and prestige....yes we did, empire NOT!!!

    we hear of dissent in western europe from dissenters, the gov'ts and populations of europe and probably the rest of the world realize what is obvious, USA all the way!!!
    you are a dissenter, a doubter, and i will show you the errors of your ways.....
    there are very few learned people outside of the university pedogogy who doubt what i know, and you will find out.....
    America was the best thing that ever happened to this world!!!

    don't be fooled by in name only movements....
    nazi's notwithstanding!!!!

    yes they did!!!!
    i have showed you that they EMBRACED the comintern!!!!!
    but lets say for a moment the USSR didn't?
    (even though i showed you they did)
    the expansion of communism was totally unacceptable to truman....
    Truman doctrine!!
    whether he believed or not, our policy was driven in response to soviet aggression!!!!

    reagan was an old line cold war politician, and he totally understood how to meet aggression....
    POWER THROUGH STRENGTH!!!!
    it worked!!!!
    USSR EPIC FAIL, i thank you and the world thanks you!!!!
    were we one of two superpowers in the world....yes
    does that make us a hegemony?
    hegemony denotes evil, so if you are inferring through the label, evil, NO
    i'm not admitting.....

    i am kicking your ass, you better pick it up!!!!
     
    anita lied and (deleted member) like this.
  16. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0

    1. You aren't kicking my ass at all, and are in fact losing by miles.
    2. I will post a small summary of Nicaragua as I said I would alter on.
    3. You have essentially admitted I am right, but the only question you have remaining is - is the US evil? The answer, if your definition of evil is repression, controlling, undemocratic and authoritarian in terms of international politics, then the answer is clearly yes, and I will address this.
    4. The USSR was backward and posed a threat to democracy at various points in time, but this doesn't justify nor nullify the fact the US also was evil.
    5. The US didn't change its ways simply because of the USSR and I will address this point also.

    Hence, wait for my next reply and I will post a small explanation of some examples of US hegemony. You still haven't addressed South Korea or Japan as I did earlier, so you may want to go back and address them before you are totally wiped out. You haven't shown or explained US motives with any evidence, all you have done is shown how the USSR is bad - this has no bearing. You have used several logical fallacies, remember we weren't going to use these? Specifically you are using Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) - you assert simply because there was the Cold War, the US had to up its military agenda, yet haven't shown this, you have just assumed it - you need to prove it.
    Similarly you have used Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") - you assert that everything can be attributed to the Cold War and fear of the USSR, yet have yet to show this.
    Thus almost half of your arguments are red herrings, sine they dont actually answer the question.

    You have admitted the US is a hegemon, so I have one half - now you dispute its role as a hegemon, so now you msut justify your new vision of its nature.
     
  17. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    totally kicking your ass, so lets proceed;
    under the definitions provided;
    Hegemon;
    hegemon - a leading or paramount power

    so if the question is, was the US a hegemon, a leading or paramount power, the answer is obviously YES, we are the world's leading superpower, have been since 1945....so there's not much debate?
    additionally, you proclaim and infer that because we are a superpower, that we must be an empire....
    once again your definition:
    Imperial;
    1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of an empire or a sovereign, especially an emperor or empress: imperial rule; the imperial palace.
    2. Ruling over extensive territories or over colonies or dependencies: imperial nations.
    3.a. Having supreme authority; sovereign.
    b. Regal; majestic.
    4. Outstanding in size or quality.
    5. Of or belonging to the British Imperial System of weights and measures.


    as you can plainly see, it doesn't muster, doesn't apply.....
    are we influential, yes, to state the contrary is negligable....
    but your inference that because we are a superpower, we are "evil" is quite untrue....
    i've offered several explanations to this, citing the world's other "option"....
    now you state, this is unacceptable?
    why because it is true?
    i've already stated that US policy has at times, picked the wrong dog in the fight,
    but i'll reiterate my claims;

    you cited korea, what is south korea today?
    who supports the peoples republic of N.Korea(in name only)
    and who support south korea?
    rhee's puppet regime was a necessary step in the 'containment of communism"
    kim jong ill a necessary stage for the chicoms?


    and you failed to address the underlying theme of your argument, of how

    the world would of been better with stalin, krushchev or breshnev at the helm, all guilty of mass genocide....
    i think you are enamoured with the idea that just because an organization takes the name nationalist or democratic within its title or professes democratic or nationalism, that's legitimate.....
    china, n.korea, and the peoples republic of cambridge, massachusetts....just to name a few, in name only's!!!!


    i will never have the time nor the energy, (at least in the near future) to cite or source every statement written, and i will not expect the same from you, there has to be a standard of trust established here.....
    you are more than welcome to cite chomsky or kennan, as well as i will feel equally able to cite truman or reagan or whatever,
    don't entertain that "slippery slope", of citing and resourcing because it will deflect the nature of this discourse...
    keep it above board, and man-up.....cause you are getting your ass killed to date.....
    oh yea, and by the way, greece embraced the ideals of the comintern......

    lastly, take a few days to recoup, circle the wagons, the cold war world, saw TWO SUPERPOWERS, two visions for the world, to address the perceived evils of one, without addressing the evils of the "other" is.....
    you cannot address this issue, as if the US was in a vaccuum.....
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that's what you call ignoring three of my points and providing no evidence for your conclusions, sure :rolleyes:
    btw I will repost the points of mine you didn't address and more in a short while. I just went on a short trip and just got back so wait a day or two and you'll have plenty to keep you busy.

    No I showed that whilst you are a hegemon, you are also exhibit qualities of an empire - exerting power and leaving, what the government calls "military footprints" around the world.

    Actually I never brought the label of evil into it, you did, but if the USSR counts for evil, which was to you, determined by policies of anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom, then the US is certainly evil, since it exercises the same policies.

    It isnt acceptable, unless your argument is simply "the USSR is more evil than the US" which I already said, and which proves my point since it doesn't disprove the fact the US is an imperialistic hegemon;
    Your empire is that of the Cold War - and is like that of the USSR - built upon satellite states etc, not like the Victorian era will colonial governments. The US empire can be measured not by its number of directly controlled colonies, but rather its standing military bases and continuous coercion.

    So you are saying all the 'bad dogs' were simply to fight communism, is this your argument?


    Where did I say that? I said they would be better off without EITHER THE US OR THE USSR.

    So what makes it legitimate?

    Yeah but you cant make generalizations and total conclusions without any evidence. Sure the USSR is bad, I never denied this, I agreed with you - but this isnt relevant to saying the US isnt an empire. We aren't here to debate morality, we are debating whether the US is an empire, if you want to say it s great empire, fine, but you are still agreeing with me.

    Seriously stop saying that its really childish, You have gotten totally blown out of the water. You have only responded to half of my points. I have sited more than simply Chomsky and Kennan, you on the other hand have merely talked about Stalin's purges - totally irrelevant. So far you actually in total agreement, the only thing you disagree with me on is whether the US is an evil empire or a good empire, which is another debate in itself - we can have a debate about that is you would like.

    No it didnt. I have already shown that by 1947 they had totally ditched tes with the Soviet Union. Even then when section supported the Comintern they did nothing of what you said they would do. You said, as loyal communists, they would resort to dictatorship, destroy democracy and liberalism - AND YET THE DID THE OPPOSITE! They formed elections - BY THEMSELVES. The allows 1 million people to participate - everyone they could. They respected the electoral system and did as their populace wanted - this is liberal philosophy.

    So far you have agreed with my point of view, at least in terms of the topic of this thread. You have admitted that the US is an hegemon with imperial tendencies - you only dispute the course and nature of those tendencies. If you would like to discuss whether it is 'good' or 'evil', we can and you may beat me (I dont think so), but if you want to discuss that, then lets start a new debate. By all means make another OP, you can define what we are talking about and I will debate you. But this thread is about whether the US is a hegemonic empire and so far you have agreed, you even say so yourself.

    Like I say we can start a new discussion about the NATURE of the US hegemon, but this will require a new thread.
    If you are going to start such a discussion, I recommend you entitle it something like "the nature of US foreign policy" or "the goal of US hegemony."

    If you want to continue discussing and dispute whether the US is a hegemon, start on these two points you failed earlier to address.

    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).
    Unearthing War’s Horrors Years Later in South Korea

    Also look, to 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 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.
     
  19. the big ragu

    the big ragu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've addressed your points:
    1- hegemon? if you say so
    2- imperial? NOPE
    3- the world would be better without US? NOPE

    we are the most powerful nation on the face of the planet since 1945, how could we NOT be seen as so?

    "exhibit qualities"....this is quite a retreat from earlier posts.....
    you are wilting, under the BIG RAGU pressure!!!

    and i am re-iterating that you cannot look at history as if the player is in a vaccuum.....to do otherwise is ridiculous.....
    you continue to view this as if we were ALONE....
    you cannot!!!!
    the world post 1949, had two superpowers, one of which was driven towards expansion, the other driven towards checking that aggression...
    its really that simple!!!


    this is absolutely NOT TRUE....
    i've given you mountains of evidence that illustrates the "evils" of the soviet "hegemon", (notice negative connotation)
    and your response?
    the "evil" (my word) soviet union models a repressive gov't which purged peasant's, ukrainians, german's, poles of millions.....hundreds of millions....
    stalin's, krushchev, breshnev's blood stained hands....

    how could even compare that "EVIL".....
    we stamped out that "EVIL", you should be grateful...

    actually my argument is simple:
    + the USSR was a far worse alternative; (Cold War = good vs. evil)
    + the world is better off because we defeated the soviets....
    + the US is the most powerful nation on the planet since 1945
    + we are not an imperialist country(using your own definition, already)

    you should write a book, who else with come up with this nonsense:
    The US empire can be measured not by its number of directly controlled colonies, but rather its standing military bases and continuous coercion.

    think about what you just wrote, the US cannot be measured by its colonies....
    but rather by its military bases, and coercion?

    so the US cannot be adjudged by facts but by the amount of bases and "coercion"
    interesting word...."coercion" now just how would the US be coercive, as opposed to those "lovely soviets" (PLEASE SEE SARCASM)

    you know whats funny?
    we should be talking and pointing out the genocide of those USSR, but nowhere, its always US this, US that.....why is that?
    (sorry off topic)

    no what i am saying is that we have made mistakes, we are not perfect....
    i've said it every post...and sometimes we have supported "bad" leaders at the risk of something worse....
    real politik, the world was seen through the containment of communism, big picture, not the little picture, our critics, you included want to crucify for.....
    we are the big kahuna, this is our world, we created it, Pax Americana
    and you still see how screwed up it is, so we're definately not perfect, but
    we mean well. and have!!!

    I love the smell of victory in the morning!!!!!

    you can have your cake and eat it too?

    you proclaimed them legitimate, i guess because in their name these organizations evoked "nationalism".....
    "in name only"?

    "slip, slide and away"......

    we aren't here to debate morality?

    forget the hundreds of millions murdered by the soviets, and the repression of humanity but remember the estimated 100 thousand murdered by by rhee?

    you make the rules;
    no morality, you got it!

    the US isn't an empire, it is a great SUPERPOWER!!!!!

    i've responded to EVERY STATEMENT made

    internal memos, are a product of a free and open society, aren't they awesome!!!!

    keenan memo pps23 stated
    I. United States, Britain, and Europe
    On the assumption that Western Europe will be rescued from communist control, the relationships between Great Britain and the continental countries, on the one hand, and between Great Britain and the United States and Canada.... The solutions will have to be evolved step by step over a long period of time. But it is not too early today for us to begin to think out the broad outlines of the pattern which would best suit our national interests.

    In my opinion, the following facts are basic to a consideration of the problem.
    1. Some form of political, military and economic union in Western Europe will be necessary if the free nations of Europe are to hold their own against the people of the east united under Moscow rule.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan

    keenan was offering opinion and advice, he was RIGHT!!!!!

    talked?
    i gave you citations, didn't i, once again, slip, slide and away....
    man-up, when one starts to lose, they grasp at straws, you are grasping, big ragu time
    don't worry, your not the first to fall and beg forgiveness before the big ragu, many have fallen before, and many after....
    i forgive you for your trangressions, just start reading some relevant history....
    you are absolved!!!
    not true!!!
    superpower, yes....empire NOT!!!
    evil, definately NOT!!!!
    God smiles on the United States of America and all its friends!!!!
    did you now, and i showed you truman's response to the stalinist or trotskyites or tito or maoist or whatever!!!!!

    GREECE?
    finally!!!
    In October 1946, DSE (Democratic Army of Greece) launched a campaign to win control of the whole country, and received support from neighboring Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria.
    http://www.marxists.org/subject/greek-civil-war/index.htm


    It is unquestionable that in 1936 Greece was in the throes of a revolutionary crisis. The Greek workers were prepared to overthow capitalist rule and join hands with the peasantry to form a government of Workers and Farmers. The Communist Party dominated the whole working class movement and likewise enjoyed strong support in the countryside.
    http://www.marxists.org/subject/greek-civil-war/fourth-international/1945/02/x01.htm

    By 1936, on instructions from the Comintern, they had made an about face and began their ultra-opportunist course of the People's Front. Instead of organizing the workers for decisive revolutionary action and working to draw the peasants of the countryside into the struggle
    http://www.marxists.org/subject/greek-civil-war/fourth-international/1945/02/x01.htm

    it goes on and on, you read it!!!!
    the marxists actually blame the british for alot of their discontent....
    trotskyites, stalinists, who gives, the best red is a dead red!!!!!

    we are still in greece, save this!!!!
     
  20. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the basis for the Great Game.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page