That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Do you know why the American public was treated to the bogus Peak Oil theory back in the 1950s?

It was a propaganda ploy.....

Domestic producers had lift costs that were ten times higher than those in the Middle East.

 

Where did you show this? Seriously, where?

This isnt relevant to this thread mate.

I never said there wasn't a cold war, I have totally acknowledged the Soviet threat, I have hwoever shown that regardless, the US acted totally for its own, imperial interests.

Again, I agree, the Soviet Union, was evil - how is that relevant to the US?

Actually I took that line from Chalmers Johnson's book, Dismantling the Empire.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dismantling-Empire-Americas-American-Project/dp/0805093036"]http://www.amazon.com/Dismantling-Empire-Americas-American-Project/dp/0805093036[/ame]

Do you not understand English?

I have already shown you - through economic and military intervention, all around the world. I gave you a list of over 15 such examples.

So basically, every bit of evidence I have is simply a "mistake", sorry but that is childish to say the least. There is a clear motive behind these actions. The US doesn't just bring about regime change "by mistake" repeatedly.

Sorry mate you lost by the forth post - LOL you couldn't even reply to it.

Again prove it was in name only. By your initial standards they were compeltely legitimate.

No, we are here to debate whether the US is a hegemonic empire, and you just admitted I was right -WIN!

LOL So if you kill 2 people I can one and its justified

Show how my points, which show it is an empire, are wrong.

No you haven't, you have yet to reply to Japan and Korea. I already whooped your ass on Greece.

But they weren't free. They weren't available to anyone for 30 years. LOL

He also, as I showed earlier, placed US interests - separate from democracy, liberty and freedom, as the primary goal of US foreign policy.

No, you gave me a Wikipedia page. Slip, slip -oh you just fell.

Yes, the US is evil - thew USSR is just MORE evil. They are both evil, though.
God smiles on the United States of America and all its friends!!!![/quote]
God clearly hates the US mate, but again this is irrelevant.

I showed you Truman's policy - totally unfaithful to the US' public presentations.

Yes and these countries had no allegiance to the USSR! WIN!

LOL You are clearly losing. You had to go form your first source of Wikipedia, to a Marxist, biased website! LOL! Fail!

The US INSTALLED FASCISTS!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqb1cdfZ5U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqb1cdfZ5U[/ame]

So much for "good". The US helps neo-Nazis! They did it in Guatemala as well! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

You still haven't answered these two points;

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.

You have totally lost. You might as well stop humiliating yourself.

 

The way to deal with the international left's hatred of Americans is to give the left something new to deal with. The new international order being created by China which will diminish the things the international left values.

Australia will ultimately be drawn into the Chinese orbit. Australians who hate America will have something else to think about. Australians will remember American hegemony with regret that they had a role in destroying it.

 

Well it may surprise yo to know I'm not left wing.

Define orbit. Conservatives are incredibly stupid to think a new hegemon like that of America's will emerge in the same fashion. We are approaching "perpetual peace' - in Kant's words.

Like?

No we will be happy - so will the overwhelming majority of the world.

Americans will regret their nation was an imperial hegemon. 9/11 is evidence of the possible repercussions of such policy.

 

you have shown nothing of the sort?
you have shown interpretations and minutes from advisory notes.....
which proves that all avenues were expressed....
the US policy of containment was directed at "containing the aggressor USSR....
its really that simple....
because we are a democratic society, our every action, decision, discussion is available for public consumption after a set amount of years, freedom of discovery has given liberals, critical of US interests, to use any discussion, document to uncover a perceived cabal that simply does not and did not exist.....

you agree USSR was evil....
its extremely relevant in that we were in an epic battle to contain the spread of that evil (your word)
policy makers pushed the containment of that evil which surplanted the ideals you are critical of.....
i've said it 5 times already.....real politik....
unfortunately(for you) the US had to ally itself with the status quo, conservative elements of a conflict as opposed to the leftist/liberal elements.....that is the nature of our predicament...
if you were to ask truman to promte leftist stalinist in greece, who were supported by the comintern(1936), and bulgarian, slavian communists, you would of been called before HUAC and run out of town....
the proposition is wholeheatedly STUPID!!!!
and it would of never happened!!!

NOW, i've asked you several times to not take the approach that America was in a vaccuum, take into account the environment in which these policy makers made these decisions!!!!
you have to, in order to fully grasp, why these decision makers made, and acted upon the actions they undertook!!!!

i knew it was good, but that good....phew....

absolutely, and i understand how definitions and meanings of words like "imperial" can be molded through the english "language"....
i see no obvious reason for expost facto regenerations of our language....
when i went to school, the definition of imperialism was pretty straight forward...
and hegemony implies a negative connotation to the reader, and the writers use denotes a political agenda?

we are staying in greece, before we move on......
(this is what we agreed to)
one at a time....

you stated the communists were "legitimate"?
(i refuted that several times)
you stated thaat the greek communists were not influenced by the USSR?
(that is wrong 1936, they accepted the aims and goals of the comintern)
you stated there was no outside interference in greece?
i showed you, evidence from a marxist site, boasting.....
i also showed you that Albanian, Macedonian, Yugoslavian, Bulgarian and Soviet communists all were influential in the development of labor strikes, civil upheaval and conflict, all of which were designed to deteriorate the post war stability of greece....

question?
who would of gained from the total devastation of post war greece?

childish?
its what happened.....
greece being our subject, truman was blamed for "losing china" to communism.....
do you think for a nanosecond, he'd let greece or turkey go communist?
come on....
omnipresent in the policy makers was the spectre of losing more of the world to communists....
call that childish....whatever
its what happened....
the most powerful nation, one of the 2 superpowers, lost all of eastern europe, china and now were going to let greece and turkey....
hello!!!!

powerfull-yes
superpower-yes
hegomonic- not if this denotes negativity
empire- definately not....especially after johnson's delicious attempt to rewrite the definition of imperial.....

killing is justified under several circumstances, one of them being WAR!!!!
if A kills one person they should suffer the consequences of that action....true, it is not justified....
but if you B kills 500 people, they too should suffer the consequences.......
this is also not justified....
but given the choice between these two above options: A or B
one is definately better than the other!!!!!

we are not going to korea or japan or grenada, or beirut or somalia, libya UNTIL GREECE IS finnito!!!!

i can't use wiki, is this a change in policy?
as i said, the only reason i'd have to cite, is for you, not for me....i don't have the time or the energy to cite......
don't slide down that slope....
be happy you got anything!!!

GOD LOVES AMERICA!!!!!

you got ooogats!!!!

eastern europe was CONTROLLED BY THE SOVIETS, they were satellite nations

marxist- clearly ON PURPOSE!!!
do marxists lie?

and the soviets exported terrorism?

i'm close to winning in greece after you concede defeat, we'll be able to move on...

you can't win in greece, because there is no way on gods green earth that Harry Truman would of allowed the spread of communism on the peloponeseus....
i've showed his speech, his policy....do you need a sworn affadavit from the man himself?

 

Americans already regret their country was an imperial hegemon. The US/Ozzie military relationship will wither in the years to come as America is forced to withdraw from E. Asia and the Western Pacific. As a result Oz will not have the wherewithal to stand alone. Oz will fear antagonizing its Big Brother. I use that term in the Confucian rather than Orwellian sense.

China has already penetrated the economy of Oz. This phenomenon will expand in scope. Oz will become dependent on Chinese financial and economic good will. And the Chinese will use their power because the nature of their political system permits long term calculation and execution.

You think Oz is in the world of Kant? Oz is too close to China and too far from gawd. Nietzche is more apt than Kant. Have you seen Chinese claims to the South China Sea and the East China Sea? This is only a return to the world that existed prior to Western expansion.

America will become irrelevant to Oz as a model because your country is going to undergo profound demographic change. The new Australians won't have ties to the West.

 

Not really, but they will be.

How is this bad?

"penetrated"? LOL That's why the US has half the country owned by foreign powers - including China! LOL!

What phenomenon?

Not really. We are dependent on their import quotas for our resource industry, but the bulk of our economy is its services sector - untouchable by China.

That makes no sense and is not possible, As China expands its internal domestic situation will worsen and it will eventually drop its communist conditions.

No I think the world is following the theory of perpetual peace best described, correctly, by Kant.

What's gawd?

What did Nietzche say about economic international integration? LOL Never heard of it.

LOL You wish.

What demographic change? Superior living standards and quality of the life to the US? Yes that is the case.

Australia is the west. In fact you should define "the west" before we continue although I have the suspicion you are a racist perpetuating the increasingly fascistic rhetoric encroaching threads like this.

 

I should address the role of the USSR more closely in order to stop this continual defence that you shield yourself with. It will arrive shortly. I'm really short on time at the moment.

Where did you refute it? Seriously show me, because I would have noticed.

Again, the war was not in 1936 - the US intervention was in the 40s and by then they were democratic and had cut ties with the USSR. I have shown you this already.

No I did not. I said the USSR had no influence during the war - the influence came form Albania and Yugoslavia which had cut ties with the Soviets. The US should have embraced the resistance groups of WW2, ie the socialists, that were now trying to get their freedom. Nixon was willing to create ties with Ceausescu when he showed willingness to open his economy - even though he was a total authoritarian and a Stalinist - not just a communist but a Stalinist. Your idea that the US could not touch communists ever is incredibly inaccurate.

Yeh Marxist - totally biased.

Yes POST-WAR - NOT AFTER THE WAR. The Civil War was AFTER THE WAR. By that stage the Greek communists were not allied to the USSR. Also, do you know why they were restless during the war years? hmmm? BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING OCCUPIED BY NAZIS!

Elites - as happened when the US supported the rise of conservative fascistic elements. Then in the 1960s they did it again.

LOL The fact you cant handle more than Greece, which I have already won with your own sources, speaks highly of your inability to debate.

Again, I have won in Greece. I won ages ago.

I have shown more and will do so again.

 

I haven't insulted you in any way, but you call me a racist. Why is it necessary for you to focus on me as an individual instead of my ideas? I respectfully request that you explain why you engage in invective?

As far as your response is concerned it is simly a denial followed by rhetoric. I think you and I can agree on one thing for sure. Australia and America are not going to have a relationship in the future other than trade.

 

previous posts, i illustrated the misconception derived from the term "legitimate" (your word), you earlier described leftist rebellion in greece etal as "legitimate" (your word)
i repeatedly warned of the idea of "in name only" revolutionary groups, supported by the comintern, designed to thwart the conservative status quo, dismantle stability and expand communist hegemony.....

greek communists in 36, accepted the ideals of the export of rebellion in order to foment the destruction of capitalism....this is the proscription for the post war aggression of the USSR!
and you expect truman to overlook the facts?

the international IS the soviet export of communism, and aid designed to acheive the destruction of capitalism......
Nixon?
we are at TRUMAN, and containment.....not nixon and detente.....
red is dead....1945-1972.....
containment IS the policy!!!!
the US "should" of embraced.....?
....and i should of got better grades in high school? they didn't!!!! and I didn't!!!!!
which gives further evidence that even the commie FDR, truman, ike continued to fear the expansion of communism, and among other things, did not even remotely want to appear "soft" on communism, especially after truman lost half of europe and china to communism.....

marxist lie?

because they were "restless", they have an excuse to become communist?

the elites would of gained from communist upheaval and anarchy in greece?
what elites?
is this another cabal?
the fact of the matter is, instability and the lack of political strength was a breeding ground for the seeds of communism.....
post war greece was ripe for the spread of communism, and they all arrived ready for an easy victory.....
with the vaccuum of power and post war instability vaulted communist ideals through the first 5 chapters of the "how to destroy capitalism" manifesto.....

you broke our agreed rule; no ad hominem.....
fact is, this has been quite easy for me, even if you never answer any of my "further" queries....

greece:
truman doctrine, containment of communism, that greece?
you won, why? because you stated the US "should of supported socialists"?
that's a victory?
N O T
historically,
the US checking of communist aggression enabled 50 years of PAX AMERICANA (my word)

 

some historically relevant FACTS;
(citation below)
(edited for length)
During the Second World War the Balkans was a secondary theater of operations.
The Greek and Yugoslav Communist parties,in particular, succeeded in mobilizing large-scale partisan resistance...
The Greek Communist Party created a National Liberation Front (EAM) in 1941.
By 1943 Greek National Liberation Army (ELAS), commanded 60,000 fighters.
In 1944, however, encouraged by Moscow for whom positive relations with its wartime allies remained all important, the leaders of ELAS opted to subordinate their movement to British command. When the Germans in November 1944, The situation in the country was critical.
The British, demanded the disbanding of the ELAS guerilla's the principal Greek resistance movement, which was controlled by the communists, refused to disarm.

Why?

Thus, the first phase of the Civil War began on December 3, 1944.

street fighting between ELAS and British forces during December (known as the “Second Round ”) the communists failed....
KKE accepted the Varzika Agreement calling for the disarming of ELAS.
The outcome allowed a revival of right wing nationalist forces shielded by the British occupation.

Legitimate? (your word?)

At the end of World War II, Greece stood in virtual ruin.
The victors of World War II foresaw that differences in national objectives, policies, and even ideology would continue into the post-war world.
They also knew that additional problems would challenge the international order. The US and its allies hoped to keep these differences to a manageable level through the newly formed United Nations.
While much progress was made on some fronts, it soon became clear that there was a growing discord between the US and the USSR, and more broadly, between democracy and capitalism on the one hand and Soviet-led communism on the other.

Understatement?

Soviet intransigence, as demonstrated in Germany, in Korea, and in other areas, dashed American hopes for Great Power unity.
The USSR, Winston Churchill warned in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, early in 1946, was lowering an "iron curtain" across the European continent.
It (USSR)successfully, and quickly, drew eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania behind that curtain.
Much of the thinking was black and white.
The United States stood for the morally good, while Stalin and the USSR’s leadership was evil and bent on world domination.

Sound familiar?

Recent scholarship based on Soviet archives demonstrates Stalin’s fears about internal dissent, his poor management style, and his own paranoia about the West and its intentions.
Stalin had some reason to be concerned, as he was very sensitive to the allies’ debate during the war on just how to contend with or influence Moscow.
From late 1945 on, the events of the failed foreign ministers conferences, political takeovers in central Europe, the Berlin blockade, and the Greek civil war made it clear to the West that any hope for reasoning with Moscow was largely an illusion.

A truce was signed and ELAS guerrillas withdrew from Athens.
The Varkiza peace agreement aimed at reconciliating the opposite blocs...

The breach of its terms by both sides led to a new political polarisation and the dramatic events of the last stage of a harsh civil war that lasted until 1949.
The Slavo-Macedonians, with the backing of the Tito regime in Yugoslavia, kept up their efforts. Just a few days after the Varkiza agreement, Slavo-Macedonian emigres from Greece formed, NOF (National Liberation Front) and sent armed guerrilla bands back
In May 1946 the Greek civil war resumed, with Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania channeling support to Communist guerrillas who aim to overthrow the Greek Government. because of its mountainous terrain and common borders with the Communist Balkan countries, Northern Greece (Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus) , became the center of the conflict. Meanwhile, former SNOF fighters (who, being loyal to Tito, had been forced by EAM to leave Greece) set up a new pro-Yugoslav organization (NOF), returned to Greece and sided with the Greek Communists.
The fight continued for two reasons. The Greek government was unstable. and Greece had territorial conflicts with Yugoslavia and Albania. Tito gave his support to the EAM-ELAS. The Communist forces of Greece retreated north where they could be supported by Yugoslavia and Albania.

Instability.....that sounds familiar?

territorial claims from eastern bloc countries, another communist expansion angle....(this gets better every minute)

Britain sent 40,000 troops to Greece and financial aid to the government, which became dependent on Great Britain's military and financial assistance

British evil imperial hegemony?

Great Britain possessed its own difficulties, British announced that they would cease providing aid to Greece and Turkey

enter....the USA to save the day...AGAIN!!!

The United States could see no inherent limits to the outward push.
Each Communist gain, it seemed, would serve as a springboard from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war, offered tempting opportunities for further Soviet expansion. The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence.

sound familiar?

China presented a dilemma. On the one hand, it was doubtful that Chiang Kai-shek could defeat the Communists with aid short of direct American participation in the civil war. Such participation was considered unacceptable.

mistake!!!!

Viewing the European continent as the main area of Soviet expansion, the United States at first limited its containment policy to western Europe and the Mediterranean area and attempted other solutions to the problem in Asia.

Truman found himself beset by new and serious problems.
The Soviet Union had become hostile to United States interests.
Additionally, the Soviets heightened international anxiety when they seized control of several Eastern European countries and threatened the independence of Turkey and Greece. Soviet-supported communist guerilla actions in Greece, and Soviet diplomatic pressures in Turkey, were causes for great concern to President Truman.
He believed the unrest in Greece and the overt Soviet political actions in Turkey were blatant attempts to establish a strong communist presence in the region. Truman also felt that the spread of Soviet hegemony was inimical to the national interests of the United States, especially in the non-Communist parts of the Balkans, Asia Minor, and the Persian Gulf region.

can you say truman doctrine?

The wild card that decided the outcome were the loyalty of the Greek communist leadership to Stalin ’s....
In justifying this doctrine Truman declared:

it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure...we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.
the Greece-Turkey Aid Act
In response, the ELAS announced the formation of a Communist government, the "Free Greek Government." With about 20,000 to 30,000 guerrillas, the ELAS fought its way south

In the ensuing three years [1947-49], Greece and Turkey received well over $600 million in both United States. military and economic aid.
authorizing that aid stipulated military advisers would administer the programs within the respective countries.
By mid-1949 there were over 527 United States armed forces personnel in the Joint United States Military Advisory and Planning Group in Greece and over ...the Truman Doctrine was to provide a precedent for the principle of collective security. It was cited as the foundation of subsequent similar programs under the premise that to promote the security and well-being of friendly foreign nations was in the best national interest of the United States.

your fallacious definition of imperial....

US financial aid stabilized the Greek government and its military assistance helped force the ELAS back to the north.
The Communist party split ended Yugoslavian support.
Yugoslavia disagreed with the Soviet Union on certain issues, dividing Communists into supporters of Tito and supporters of Stalin.
The Greek Communist Party came to support Stalin and subsequently, Yugoslavia ended its support of the Greek rebels in July 1948.
tens of thousands chose exile in camps in the Soviet Union

Containment, as a policy launched by the Truman Administration, was designed to frustrate Soviet attempts to expand their military, political, and economic base in Europe.
if the Soviet Republic could not expand its influence or borders, communism would eventually collapse of its own inherent weaknesses.

BINGO WIN!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/greek.htm

 

interesting you should bring that up. I wonder if MegadethFan would consider the consequences of the past and the future, without US intervention in this area. that is to assume that neither the US or USSR where not superpowers.

unfortunately you may well be correct. but as from what I see around the country, the US is far from loosing support for it's hegemony. Only a few you see here do not reflect a majority of Australian interest. They simply reflect their own IDEA of what they mistakenly think the world should be like without real and clear understanding of what it actually is.

and there is good reason for that. whilst the US is more than capable to attain control of Australia's leadership, for the most it welcomes our governance as independent and obviously listens to our contribution (be it rather inconsequential to the problems being expressed). far from imperialistic attitudes.

but at this present time I have watched a slightly interesting debate slowly fall into debauchery with the old tit for tat argumentative responses, making the whole debate meaningless. the fact that it started with such great promise, it is very obvious that one party has actually ran out of substance with claims of victorious outcome. this party obviously has misinterpreted the statements being made and I would suggest that both these parties would take a step back and examine their evidence.

Lets get back on track and see a real debate or just call it quits. At this present time we can see a winner because this has slid into a “I’m right because your wrong” debate.

 

the "mood" of US/Soviet relations:
(condensed for length)
(citation below)

The COMINFORM Communist Information Bureau
In 1946, the Italian Communists won 48 percent of the vote and the French Communists, 46 percent of the vote.
Having seen communist parties seize power in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia and a communist insurgency threaten Greece, the Western powers dedicated themselves to containing Soviet influence.

After the dissolution of the Comintern, Colonel General Andrei A. Zhdanov advocated the establishment of a new international Communist organization...
Zhdanov was considered an "aristocrat of the Party"...is said to have been a fanatic Communist, is said to have been responsible for the organization of the Cominform in September 1947, a foreign policy move which at the minimum was intended to sabotage the Marshall Plan...if successful, result in the loss by the United States of the $7½ billion yearly gifts, but also of about the same amount of goods which have been paid for. This great reduction in trade might start an economic disaster; it seemed worth trying.
....Stalin feared a weakening of the Soviet Union's grip on Eastern Europe. Anticommunist forces in the region remained potent, and most of the communist governments were unpopular.
In addition, East European parties began taking positions independent of Moscow; for example, communists in the Polish and Czechoslovak governments favored participation in the Marshall Plan, and Yugoslavia and Bulgaria broached the idea of a Balkan confederation.
By September Stalin had abandoned gradualism and reversed his earlier advocacy of independent, "national roads to socialism."
He now pushed for tighter adherence to Moscow's line and rapid establishment of Soviet-dominated communist states.
The policy shift was indicated in September 1947 at the founding meeting of the Cominform, an organization linking the Soviet communist party with the communist parties of Eastern Europe, France, and Italy.
The Russian Plan, called for the reconstitution of the Comintern, renamed the Communist Information Bureau, whose first mission would be to overthrow the existing governments in France and Italy and replace them with communists. These two countries are the largest in west Europe, with the greatest populations and the best industrial plants. Their location strategically is such that if occupied the American line of communications to the eastern Mediterranean would be threatened. Germany would be encircled on three sides. It would be impossible to defend Germany under those conditions. The small states of the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland would be unable to maintain their independence. Spain and Portugal might be defended, provided necessary measures are taken in time. Even Scandinavia would be in danger, and this possibility has been feared by the General Staff of Sweden.
On 22 October 1947, Colonel General Andrei A. Zhdanov, issued a declaration of Russian policy. This charged that the United States was seeking "world domination through American imperialism . . . [through] a new imperialistic war against socialism and democracy and by supporting reactionary and anti-democratic pro-Fascist regimes everywhere." Zhdanov listed the peace-loving democracies as consisting solely of Russia and its satellite states, less Finland—considered as partly Fascist. India, Egypt, and Syria were probable new members, while the revolutionists in Indo-China and Indonesia were expected to join. All other states throughout the world were charged as in "preparation for new military adventures" under American domination.

sounds alot like what you've been bloviating....huh?

Against the supposed threat of a new and fearful war against the peace-loving democratic states of Russia and its satellites, General Zhdanov announced that Russia would take the lead to oppose the United States.
He called upon all communists in the world to join in the battle.
To start the campaign, he said that "the USSR will put all effort in seeing that the Marshall Plan is not realized."
Previously the Communist Information Bureau (new name for the Comintern) had on 27 September and 5 October 1947 issued statements announcing the organization of the communist states to combat alleged American efforts to start a new war. The first objective was to secure France and Italy.
The advantages to Russia included stopping American exports to Europe to the extent of the $7½ billion furnished yearly during 1946 and 1947, and proposed for 1948.
This with the hope that it will cause unemployment in the United States and help in starting an economic crisis.
Second, to separate west Europe from cooperation with the United States by installing communist governments friendly to Russia, and ready to join Russia. Third, to secure control of the great industrial plants and resources of manpower in west Europe. United to the resources of Russia the combined resources and industrial plants, after reconditioning and coordination, will equal or exceed those of the United States, while the combined manpower will be vastly superior. Fourth, to secure desirable and numerous bases fronting on the Atlantic Ocean for air and naval forces.
The continuing independence of France and Italy was of major strategical importance to the United States. In these countries, communist parties had been operating for years, and have been in close liaison with Russia.
They were both represented at the initial meeting of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) in September 1947, and joined in the declaration that uprisings against their own national governments should be carried out this winter.
The French Communist Party undertook violent action in November of 1947 and, until broken by the French army, almost succeeded in paralyzing the government and the economy...
On the 12th of November serious communist riots started in Marseille and Naples. They were on the same pattern — strikes of port employees to tie up imports.
A few days later the strikes were extended in France to coal mining and industrial areas and in Italy to industrial cities.
The French Communist Party on 14 November issued a declaration stating they were opposing collusion with the United States, and would proceed to greater violence if necessary. Strikes by government employees in France stopped railroad traffic and public services, the French government on 21 November resigned. A new government under M. Robert Schuman was formed.
It ordered troops to suppress disorders, and authorized them to use ball ammunition if necessary, which had the necessary effect.

The Italian Party undertook similar action, but wlth much less success. The Italian government took vigorous steps to quell the communists. The strength of the MPs (Carabinieri) was increased by 10,000 by transfers from other military organizations. This Italy was entitled to do under her peace treaty. Energetic action was taken in Italy. Communist demonstrations now fell off. On 9 December 1947, the communists acknowledged defeat by calling off strikes and disorders in both France and Italy.

The fact that the communist uprisings followed the same pattern and occurred between the same dates in both Italy and France pointed to a common origin. Whether this was a joint plan adopted at the September 1947 meeting which reconstituted the Comintern, or whether it was pursuant to orders issued later, was not immediately known. The important fact was that the communists were decisively beaten in all areas in which they operated. According to reports from private correspondents the majority of members of the French Communist Party joined to secure better social conditions—particularly higher wages to meet the increased cost of living. They did not join to further the policies of Russia. A return of French citizens to other political parties on a rather large scale was reported.

In February 1948, the Czechoslovak Communist Party succeeded in seizing power; the impetus for this was attributed to Zhdanov.
In 1947 the Finnish Communist Party, for no apparent reason, adopted a disruptive strike program.
The Greek Comrmmists, given the challenge of the Truman doctrine in March 1947, revolted in the summer and fall of 1947 and proclaimed a Government in December of that year.
The Czech Communists seized the Government in February 1948.
To believe that Zhdanov's political fortunes depended upon the success of the miltant policy.
It succeeded only in Czechoslowkla, and this was a minor victory when compared with the reverses suffered.

Stalin held Zhdanov responsible for the various reverses in Soviet policy, in particular the Yugoslav defection. Zhdanov's death on 31 August 1948 signalled the end of the so-called Zhdanov period. There were numerous rumors and much speculation that Zhdanov was murdered. This speculation was revfved and given added impetus by the so-called Doctor's Plot of January 1953.

Just some more evidence of the Soviet advance and export of their anti-capitalist agenda during post war europe.....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/cominform.htm

 

You have to insult me before I call you a racist? Also I didn't call you a racist, I said I suspect you may be one.

Racism is an idea. If I wanted to focus on you I would have asked you're age etc.

Again, I didn't attempt nor actually acted in such a way as to attack your person. I merely noted at the end that your stance seemed to linger upon the path of other people I have debated who turn out to be racists and fascists, not that you are one, just that you may be, which will make debate seemingly hard given fascists and racists tend not to engage with facts.

Where?

You mean a military one? We already have such a relationship - have had it since WW2 in fact - and I wish it would change.

 

Where did you define legitimate? Please tell me and show me so I cna go back and read it - I cant find it.

But as I have shown they are not "in name only" as they support democracy, and stable politics - even that totally dislocated from Soviet interference like that in Greece and the USSR.

And by the 40s they were democratic constitutionalists.

Yes they lie extensively, as much as you in fact - not deliberately they are just deluded.

No, because they were oppressed! LOL Perhaps you like the boot of fascism on your face, clearly the Greeks didnt.

Economic and political - those with the most power - as in other European countries like I already showed - France, Italy etc.

Which queries?

Incorrect. If Pax Americana means 'kill the inferior for the luxury of the superior' then sure - no different to Rome, Britain etc.


Also, since the US won, why didn't it disband its hegemonic military assets? Explain that?

 

Sounds like you, in reverse. LOL

You realize this is totally irrelevant to answering the question of whether the US is an imperialist hegemon or not?

Totally irrelevant, unless you are admitting the US is an imperialist hegemon - regardless of whether you think it is evil or not - some people think empires are good, like neo-cons.

 

In this area, we would have been a lot worse off.

LOL! You mean local support? You think the US has support for its hegemony?! Well it is interesting to note in places like South Korea, where you would expect, on the basis of your ignorant assertion, support would be quite high - it is actually extremely low. Any theories as to why?

Actually Australia, like the rest of the world, has deep considerable fears and many concerns about the US and its bent foreign policy. I know the facts, you should get to know them as well;
(this one's a little old, but still relevant as the situation hasn't changed)

Why would America care for Australia in an imperialistic sense? When they have bases in South Korea, with an authoritarian regime (there used to be), Japan (with the same post war party in power for 50 years), Philippines(with an authoritarian regime again instituted) and many more sporadically placed in the region - one is in Australia as well hwoever - what purpose does it serve to interfere in our political affairs?

I am going to get this back on track in a couple of posts and end this. This debate has gone off topic, but I intend to put it back. You are welcome to contribute if you wish to do so.

 

So you basically admit, as your source does, that the communists were democratic, and that the British and Americans have acted poorly - instituting authoritarian regimes world wide etc - but your justification, for all of this, is that "the ends justify the means" and that the US HAD to do this to curb the threat of communism? Right? Is this contention? If so, I will rap this debate up by refuting this point.

To understand the nature of the US in regards to the USSR one must analyze the mind set of the US - before, during and after the Cold War. Also you must analyze what information the US knew about the communists and the sincerity of their proposals, although I have talked about that already. Hence, if your entire argument is just 'they had to do it to stop the USSR', then not only have you conceded that the US become an imperialist hegemon for that express purpose, but you also narrow the debate incredibly - never the less I will address your off topic contention.

Given you arguments rests on the these few points;
historical mindset
knowledge and conditions
sincerity (hence outcomes)
I will analyze these three points in full, after which the debate will be virtually over. Give me some time to find a book I have which has a nice definition of the militarist expansionist mindset of the US, as it quite clearly and accurately describes it and I will right a few passages.

Also, you need to stop the labels of "evil" and "good", since they can be interchangeable and are totally irrelevant. You see I think 'the ends justify the means' motto is evil, whilst you think it is good. Hence lets not get bogged down in 'good vs evil', since this doesn't actually help to prove the US is not imperialistic and stick to the topic. Also in order to justify your thesis that the US acted solely out of fear of the USSR you will HAVE TO address my other points also - namely intervention in South Korea, Japan, Europe etc. After that there are many more countries but one I address your contention I dont think you have the energy to address the rest.

 

Wrong! Reagan stopped the Cold War when the USSR, under Gorbachov, realised that the autocratic, imbecilic, suppresive Soviet regime could not survive in its present form whilst its people could see for themselves their pathetic, parlous economic state compared to the Free World embodied in the famous words of Reagan 'Tear down the Wall'!

Stop trying to rewrite history! Only dills or closed minds will believe you.

 

So, not Reagan rather Gorbachev stopped the Cold War.

LOL "Down with wall" was the inspiration for reform? You are kidding yourself.

Says the guy with no evidence and is without a clue. Notice how the cold war ended AFTER Reagan.

 

Reagan stopped the war when Gorbachev realised that the USSR was just a waste land propping up a regime that had, for too long, ravished, tortured and mutilated its own citizens and its economy, run by a hardline regime, was in total disaray. Reagan word stirring words still vibrate in my ears when he declared 'Turn down the wall'!

 

Aside form your ignorant rhetoric, Reagan had little to no effect in actually ending the cold war. Everyone knew the USSR was failing economically since the 60s, and it was precisely then that Kennedy pushed for an arms race. Gorbachev is basically the sole reason the cold war ended - Reagan has a minimal effect.

Great, they mean virtually nothing.

 

I find your posts ignorance personified. There is absolutely no doubt that Reagan had a profound effect on the demise of the Soviet Empire,. But since it was rotten to the core it would have eventually disntegrated. Regan and Gorbachev just helped it on its slippery path to oblivion. Unfortunately, some of its thuggish behaviour, eg the murder of 'difficult' journos, has not been extracted from the body politic.

 

LOL Well when you grasp enough 'truth' to actually address them by all means I will pay attention to you.

Actually there is considerable. It is only backward oldies that are so deluded think that, but by all means whatever floats your boat.

Yep and that's how it went down.

Well no, Gorbachev ended the Cold War and in doing so, dissolved the USSR. No more no less to it.

As I have shown the US wasn't much different in establishing itself as a world power for its own gain. It might interest you, on this point to know, especially since you love Reagan, to know that Reagan over saw hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of US intervention in the region - his terror war in Nicaragua being the best example.

 

Everyone, with just a hint of historical knowledge, knows that Reagan was an important factor, but not the only factor, in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Take of your anti-American hat and accept the truth of history. Your diatribe that Reagan was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the 'region would be laughable if it wasn't so despicable and absolutely untrue.

Maybe you believe in the Goebbels theory that 'if you repeat a lie long and often enough, people will eventually believe it to be true. Fortunately there are enough people on this site to hold you to the truth and repel your outrageous lies.