That the US is an imperial hegemon.

That's ok, but thanks for telling me.

Both. The Taliban made clear inclinations it was willing to hand over Osama, wince he was almost completely at odds with the ruling regime. Regardless previous US action was what created the situation to begin with. Today Afghanistan is worse off than it was 40 years ago.

What? No, the USSR left, and the US had control - ie it was funding the existing political groups, and it left them in such a state that they went on to fight each other in a bloody civil war.

Saved them? You realize the USSR only went into Afghanistan because the US provoked them? The previous socialist government was fine. Sure it was mildly repressive, but might was very progressive in social and economic reforms. Pictures of Afghans in the 70s show a society that is equally, if not more so, than today's.

The US was hated because it basically ditched the Afghans after using them to stage a bloody war with the Soviet army.

No, what Afghanistan showed was the US was entirely willing to destroy an entire nation simply to provoke injurious proxy war with the USSR.

Nope, except the chance to "kill soviets".

There is no oil there.

No, the fact they invaded them now shows, well the nature of the invasion shows they simply went there for show.

LOL The US didn't care that they had radical elements until the Taliban took power (as opposed to the perhaps more brutal rule of the Northern Alliance that the US supported) and began supporting terrorists.

Not in an of itself. Establishing and controlling other governments shows imperialistic intent. Economic control, or motive to economic control is revealed in the nature of the controlling relationship between the US and these governments.

No. See above.

I wouldn't hesitate in saying most countries seek greater economic standing, which would mean establishing relationships with other countries inducive to these ends. However to invade, destroy and change the government of other countries to that end is not simply 'natural progression' but rather an imperialistic perversion, one that the US employs.

Dominican Republic is part of America?

That's fair enough and I totally agree with such action and outlook.

Clearly not.hat you think they place bases just for the sake of it? They clearly have a purpose.

I have shown this. In my OP I discussed the 'grand area'. All the bases are located in these same key areas.

And their interests, yes and this is imperialism.

wtf? It proves my point entirely since when these same regimes do not do as required they are often ousted.

Yes, it allows movement of fair trade, hence why the US does not extent similar economic movements. It instead creates authoritarian ones that favor US economic interests in a manner of 'trade' that is not fair or legitimate.

Indeed and the US does control said states to this end as I have shown repeatedly.

So, the US did not control the Haitian economy when it forced Aristide to sign in neo-liberal reform? This the example I gave earlier that you wanted.

How do they 'control' the US? Remember it is not the ME, it is the elite rulers of the ME - ie the regimes that are in power.

 

ME has very little to do with American oil consumption. Sure it plays a small part, but the US gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico (about 7% comes from the ME). Whilst 10% comes from Venezuela, which has been a big worry for the US as of late under Chavez's rule, they did give aid to military personal who staged a coup in 2002. The reason for hegemony in the Middle East is for control of future supply. Oil companies have made it quite clear high oil prices are more beneficial than cheap ones.

Why not?

Generally in a debate if someone makes a point, another contests it, then leaves after being incapable of proving it wrong, this generally means the other person one.

Actually....

" has our policy and vision for these ideals been in conflict, absolutely!!!
have we supported some "bad" dudes, absolutely!!!
do we interfere to promote our self-interest....absolutely!!!!
it our self-interest, the world's self-interest.....absolutely!!!
is the world a better place because maintain the peace.....absolutely
are we an empire....ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! "

"like i'v said repeatedly, the path to acheive that goal has been messy, as we have just witnessed in egypt, sometimes our policies conflict with our principles, but to be hyper-critical smacks of jealousy and downright loser lamenting....."

Then he conceded defeat by asking;

"so, in order for your theory to work, in latin America and the ME we must of at one time installed the monarchs in the ME, mubarik, qadaffi and the rest, and then give them cash to maintain the repression of its citizens..... do me a favor, list all the monarchs and dictators in the ME that we "controlled" put into office and then coerced to maintain that oppression, then you might be onto something...."

I responded with a lengthy, detailed list and he did not reply. He was soundly defeated. See post #142.

My point here was to show, by US standards, US foreign policy is not good - ie not simple a relationship of 'influence', but rather of sinister control.

What government would this be? Or rather, how would Dominican Republic or Haiti have done this - or effected any of the other goals?

Again again and again I have stated that making sure a state operates on a certain platform to certain ends is control. In response earlier you said 'oh but we dont stop elections or step in when things don't go our way'. Yet I showed they did. You asked for examples of such a situation and I gave you two - Haiti and Dominican Republic with links. Am I to assume you read through them all and can find no form of 'control' and that there indeed was a legitimate reason relating to 'defense' and 'security'?

I already said, the US lost primary control 9ie of total political cohesion) in the 80s, but the US still has strong economic ties that operate to its advantage as it requires.

I've gone through this already. The US wants pro-American relations that foster advantageous economic conditions. Hence it opts for the most effective regimes to get this done where possible. Thus it is inclined to place elites in power to preserve pro-US relations, regardless of democracy, liberty or the myriad of other ramifications for the majority within each nation.

 

Energy Overview for Afghanistan

The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. However, due to declining reserves from producing fields, output gradually fell to about 220 Mmcf/d by 1980.

At that time, the Jorquduq field was brought online and was expected to boost Afghan natural gas output to 385 Mmcf/d by the early 1980s. However, sabotage of infrastructure by the anti-Soviet mujaheddin fighters limited the country's total production to 290 Mmcf/d, an output level that was held fairly steady until the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

After the Soviet pullout and subsequent Afghan civil war, roughly 31 producing wells at Sheberghan area fields were shut in pending the restart of natural gas sales to the former Soviet Union.



http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/ECONOMY/natural resources.htm

 

There is oil and gas in Afghanistan as well as many other valuable ores and minerals..

But Afghanistan is also a valuable transit state to ship oil and gas from Iran and the Stans to Pakistan, India and China.

See Port Gwadar.. in Balochistan, which is a serious prize in terms of natural resources.

Then look at the oil corridor.

 

There exists a ruling elite that favors economic interests with the support of US military and financial aid to maintain their domestic power.

Why would it dump it when the US government ensures the domestic regime has enough power to do as needed?

Like I have said countless times, the US supports the regimes that repress autonomous elements (ie groups that do not favor US interests) in their society so that economic conditions can be established that lead to US superiority.

I have repeatedly. Again you would do well to go to the examples I provided earlier - Haiti and Dominican Republic.

Yes it is. What is hypocritical about US foreign policy and domestic foreign policy - one subjugates rights, freedoms, democracy for the sake of US interests. This is entirely supportive of my point of the US being imperialistic.

They are the world!

So it is in the interest of the US - not the people of the country. Ie US controls the country as it sees fit. This is imperialism.

All are mistakes? How so?

Really? And you get this conclusion from what, exactly?

LOL So it just waits for years and years and years, but when they do do this, like in Iran for example, they need regime change again. That doesn't make sense. They want democracy but when it emerges they destroy it?

What word was that?

How did Mubarak have power over the US? How did the Shah of Iran have power over the US? How does Bahrain have power over the US?

When did it demand elections of the Saudis? Or the Egyptains?

Notice how the US never asked for elections when he was working for them?

So you are saying the US has the right to force other nations to change their economic conditions as the US wishes?

No, what I said was;
"Not much, since not much is required [ie control]. Japan has become a well integrated economic nation in the region, and has been loyal to the US for 50 years." However the relationship has changed as Japan has grown to be an economic power. Granted it does have some power over the US, in the form of strong trade agreements and large credit holdings (10% of all US debt)

Yes and no. Firstly, I agree the nature of the economic ties between Japan have changed as Japan has grown. With emergence of China as a new economic rival in the region however, the Japanese have strengthened their ties. Japan still remains a satellite state by way of military US holdings. I mentioned the bases already, but there are also the development and creation of anti-missile defences etc in Japan. Japan also sent troops to fight in Iraq. Conditions still favor US interests regardless of Japan's economically inspired autonomy. They have a number of economic agreements, US takes 31.5% of Japan's exports, whilst the Japs take 22.3% of its imports from the US. What this shows is that Japan still provides the US with a military station as it did in the cold war but also a stable economic partner. The tables of power are changing but the nature of US imperialism remains. It is better studied in other nations where there is not the same amount of power (ie of domestic politics).

In Vietnam the US sought to preserve colonial power by intervening in the civil war that was clearly part of a nationalist movement that wanted socialist reform. In Korea, the US similarly stepped on any political movements that were unfavorable to the status quo - ie serving US interests. Hence the US established dictatorships in bothy countries instead of embracing political groups that offered participation of all political parties and movements.

How?

 

This quite true, but the US did not require nor plan to invade to secure these resources.

 

What is the difference between the control displayed and what you call 'continued' control? Was it not continued until the 70s and 80s respectively?

Nope.

Not necessarily, no. It is to enforce US power, however needed.

And also to smite local populations.

Well you very much do when it was apparently 'liberated' and is 'independent and free'.

Nope.

That was not my point at all. I brought this fact up earlier to show the influence the US still has in Japan - it has created several legislative barriers so as to protect almost any illegal act committed by its personal in foreign countries.

I made no such conspiracy theory as you now suggest.

Indeed, however when I ever mention good or evil, it is based on US understandings of the phrase; like that liberty is good, and tyranny bad.

Why not?

...where?...

ok...

The people are protesting against their governments, granted for a myriad of reasons, but again these are authoritarian regimes supported by the US.

Take your time, there's no rush.

 

The US wants Afghanistan under its sphere of influence.... so did the USSR.

We can't stand that China has control of Port Gwadar. Bush made that very clear.

And, we want to control new markets... oil and gas and the natural resources of Afghanistan and Balochistan ...opening up new markets that didn't exist before or were too difficult to access... Afghanistan is key.

Certainly American oilmen in the ME have always known about the future potential on the other side of the Persian Gulf... and the increased market demands that would come from India and Pakistan.

Just like American oilmen have ALWAYS known that Iran was the cheapest and most direct transit path for oil and gas from the Caspian and the Stans.

Aramco sent my father the the Caspain in the early 1960s.

Its not that all these resources will be shipped to the US for consumption.

But US companies want a big piece of the action. Why did ENRON invest in the Dabhol Project?????

The hope was that Afghanistan would evolve like KSA.. and settle down.

I think that given time we will wind up sharing influence over Afghanistan with Russia and China.......

 

Not in 79, it does now though.

Why would the US invade Afghanistan for resources? In fact why would they not have secured the country after Soviet withdrawal?

Yes but Afghanistan is not really part of that equation.

Imo the US is in Afghanistan both as a publicity stunt and to create another satellite state. Of course US companies will be investing in the country, given the business of war, but that was not the purpose it.

 

You know this from where? What US action was involved to begin the USSR conflict sith Afghanistan? Mind you I already know the answer but I think you may not. There is a very good reason the US acted within the manner you would proclaim and it would have much to do with the actions of the USSR. The civil war was fought because the ruling party wish to invoke Marxist rule in Afghanistan. This would favour Afghanistan to become part of the USSR and would have been accepted with open arms.

They continued to fund that civil war until the goals of the war where reached again for a very good reason. Are you aware of what those reasons are? The fact that once the war had achieved it’s goal the US pulled all it’s resources and allowed the country to revel in a demoralised state was paramount to the outcomes we see today. This is a major mistake of the US, they assumed as you do that Afghanistan would love them for helping them over through oppressive aggression against them. This was early out come of the actions of the US but as SADDAM and the Afghani people found, US support was limited. With radical groups continually showing how the US and it’s allies would leave them to wallow in demoralised state. The fact, that repeated requests for assistance that where continued to be ignored should indicate to you they where not being controlled by anyone. But I am sure you will suggest that this also shows control because they where with holding aid and support.

How did they provoke them? Are you sure you know what transpired before the USSR entered the country? Are you sure you know the goals of the USSR, in entering the country? And are you actually aware what the cause of the revolution beginning the whole affair?
Depending on your perspective as to the progressiveness of the social and economic reform. Being equal to who?

Well, is that not what I said? Sorry if it was not direct enough, however, that was the point I was making. They did not control or support them, once their goals where met. They left them in a demoralised state and ignored them until AQ began direct action.

That is right, it also shows, less desire for imperialism. It also shows while the US has made many mistakes with their foreign policy intention is not to control anybody, but to ensure better out comes for themselves. This will, however, not only preclude the US but many around the world as well. The problem is that much of US intervention does not necessarily aid the US. Some would be for the benefit of other nations with very little or no benefit to the US. The Wikileaks cable affair should make you well aware of this. Not by reading kust the cables that show you things to your premise but reading many. The clear indication from the cables is that the US would prefer not to engage with many conflicts. This is shown, when you previously posted, you supposed permission of the US for Saddam to invade Kuwait. As I pointed out directly, it was the US stance, with any relations with Arab nations to state, they have no opinion with Arab to Arab relations, for twenty years. In other words, US stance would be that of circumstances portrayed, at any time actions occurred. This was dictated to all, whom dealt with Arab nations, to insure the US was not bound to rhetoric, as you assumption of permission precludes

So you are unaware of circumstances leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR?

This is pointedly wrong.

No, it shows they went for retribution. The speed and force shows that it was not for show as it was not well thought out before.

No that is not exactly true either is it? As they did not care about the Taliban either. Sure they made a big show out of denouncing the Taliban and many other radical groups but they actually thought nothing about them as they would continue to propagate something the US could not do because they had very little influence and control in the ME. Can you guess what that was? Here is a clue, it is the one thing that the world fears of the ME while militant regimes continue to rule in the ME.

If you where to suggest that private enterprise was imperialistic, then yes we can agree. However the problem of your motive of economic control by creating US friendly economies allows that economy an open door to manipulate the US economy. This is what the ME can do, and has often done before.

No that is an assumption, you need to show that once regime change and your claim of setting up economies has ongoing control.

Oh, by the way something I have not addressed is the difference of influence and control.
Influence allows options, it allows choice and allows different standing from intent.
Control removes any option, removes choice and means of self governance.

 

I have addressed why the bases are placed where they are.

The fact the US has the resources at present to place bases in these locations, places every country in the world would like to, does not show the intent you wish. As the USSR did with Cuba, it was to show the enemy the might of the US. As I said before, you can not do this by placing the bases in the enemy nations. To which I facetiously asked do you consider the world is the US’s enemy?

As I pointed out before even to do things for the interest of a nations interest would mean the entire world is Imperialistic. The wish to secure the best out come for ones nation only stands to show that the US is human.

Could you explain how in Iraq’s case the denial of fair trade actually favoured the US more than any other country? Considering it actually favoured Australia far better than the US.

Well they control the US economically. This is the example you wish to use to show the control of US over ME. The ME could very easily create great harm to the US by simply manipulating the oil supply, which they have done in the past. As the US is on of the biggest consumers of oil products and resources. I believe you are still paying $1.30 per litre for your petrol at this stage which was achieved simply by manipulating supply. The fact that the US pressured the ME to produce more by means of threat to produce their own(not threat of reprisal) shows that the US has very little control.

 

Could you supply link for the data of oil sources? The fact oil companies like high oil prices has nothing to do with your premise and is actually against the governments wishes. However, to your point of why oil companies enjoy higher prices should be aware to you as the barrel has fluctuated from $60US to $110US and the pump price has move what I believe only about 8 cents should indicate to you why they enjoy the instability of the prices of crude.

To your understanding of the US control of supply, I think if you look back at US action on that very subject, it becomes very clear the US has only the ability to draw on it’s own resources(which is limited) to have any influence on supply issues. They have no influence on price, so where is it you understand they have control of supply?

That is the problem with your premise. It is not he who has to make the point as it is not his assumption. It is you who must make the point. You have made a statement that you must prove rather than others disprove. The debate of who is winning is actually based entirely upon the observations of the spectators, not the participants.

It is the same, if one said god is white. Regardless of what one thinks, it is the obligation of the person stating such, to prove the premise. The only accepted part is that god made man in his image, not race. If you where to point out that it is mostly a predominantly white world, this does not mean the premise is proven. ( I am not reflecting upon your theology here, that is your own but I think you can understand the point I raise)

I have to admit, I did not read that post, so what I say about this comment will needed to be seen in that context(I will return to the post and if anything is slightly out of touch I will return will proper response)

The problem with showing ‘coerced to maintain that oppression’ once the regime is oppressive it will remain oppressive. There needs not coercion to maintain. The problem is that you need to show maintained controlled over the regime. So that point is really rather Irrelevant and impossible to show or deny. If the US supported the election or even instilled the regime they do not need to maintain the oppressiveness of the regime.

And what Platform is that? I think you a reaching when you consider that the US creates the economic platform of nations by supporting regimes.
Did I really state ‘we do not step in and stop elections……..’ I think not. If you refer to my comment of allowing elections and not liking the outcome so overthrow the government, this maybe true.
Actually, I have not actually researched the two examples you tout, but I will as soon as I can get the time. This is why I have not commented very much on them. Others may have but I have not I know of them but as they are not in my direct field it is something I am not well versed on. For me to comment on them at this stage other than superficially would actually trivialise the debate and cause demoralisation of the debate. It would also show complete contempt for you, which I assure you I do not wish to do or impress upon the community of the forum. I actually can not think of any substantial reason that the US would wish to control either of these nations but as I say I have not examined them at this stage and if you could find other examples, to allow me the opportunity to do so. There is much information I need to gather to see cause and effect as well as intent. This information would include more than media speculation and tainted views.
I hope you will forgive this lax approach to the examples you provide.

That is precisely the actions of the US and many other countries of the world. The problem is, that even though they opt for the most effective regimes, does not mean they control those regimes. Sure there tends to be a short period of happy families when these regimes consider the US supports their regime, as in Saddam and many other leaders that the US has manipulated to power on one way or another.

 

The problem, you do not see, is that it is unnecessary to maintain domestic power, to remain in favour of economic interests of the US. Yes many of the regimes rely on US military and finance to remain in power, that is certain. However it is not through control as these governments are happy for US support to remain so. As in the case of the ME they have some ability to control the leading economy of the world. You forget the one thing when you pointedly state things like this, the leaders of these countries wish to remain in power. They like to have the largest economy on side with the military advantage so they can grow their own wealth and basically do as they wish within their region. No need for control so where is it? Your insistence of control is not actually shown, by stating that they wish to create economies that favour US interests.

Do they? If they had done as your premise infers this war on Afghanistan and Iraq would not have occurred. By your own insistence they would simply create regime changes and the world would move on as it was before. If they had the control your premise indicates why did we have two wars with Saddam rather than just one? If they had the control you indicate why is it that they allowed Afghanistan to relish in the control of radical groups for some 20 off years( yes I said it)? Did these groups actually support the US economic interests?

Yes they do. No argument there. However they do not control the regimes they support. The fact that, these regimes often do not act in the best interests of the US should show you that the control is not there. However this also does not indicate intention either.

I will when time permits

No, I think you misinterpret my comment, sorry my mistake, I should have been more concise. The foreign policy outwardly shown could be construed many ways and their rhetoric is different to the actions they carry out. It is hypocritical and can be argued for the best of the world. This I again say is known throughout the world including the US by it’s people. You will notice many US posters will agree with you but they also will disagree with the imperialism of the US. To begin with it has a negative connotation, but most of all, it is not actually the intentions. If you had stated they are nationalistic, then you will get a lesser argument as this is truer to the real.

No, this is the mistake of the premise. It assumes the US is the centre if the global community. This you could easily support with many examples but the truth of the matter the US relies totally on other nations to continually attempt to achieve the riches the US appears to have. The fact that the ME (as one example ) has the ability to bring the US to it’s knees shows that the US is not the world at all.

No the US attempts to place regimes that are the better option of what is in the running. As in Iran, they would prefer now to have a more peaceful governance in power. Most around the world consider that over the years Iran regime is anti-US. This is actually incorrect, in the past the US has supported Iranian regimes with mixed result. Even to this day the current regime is actually more inclined to trade and work with the US but for much sabre rattling that has saw that a move from internal and some external forces mean that the regime has a fine line to travel.
Iran sabre rattles the US and it’s allies to increase their stance in the geopolitical scene. This has worked greatly as the rewards are now beginning to be felt by the people(to a degree), however, this form of diplomacy has it’s limitations. For further advancement to occur hate for the people to the US must be propagated, while maintaining stability within the country. At this present time the Iranian regime is has found that they must up the anti on this as the creation of Hezbollah has built a further obstacle for transition to trade with richer nations. So now Iran must up the anti on this sabre rattling, and the are. The nuclear issue is a major step and most likely the last. For Iran to remain nuclear they must change their relations with the rest of the world. They do not have to have the bomb, they just need the ability to make one.

Of coarse they are mistakes. Look at how much strife is about because of their foreign policy. The problem is that they are not imperialistic. If they where to your premise it would be unnecessary to continually interject with military actions and political influence. They interfere without the thought of the bigger picture. When they support the authoritarian regimes they do not give forethought to what is going to happen when the regime actually begins to fail. That is when people see how much they are oppressed. Greed usually topples these regimes, but that is only a half truth and a simplistic viewpoint

I think Iran is not a great example of your premise and I think I pointed that out before. As for waiting years, if they where in control and had intent to remain so, they would not wait.

The one thing you seem to think the US has control over, Oil. Because the US rely so heavily on oil and Iran, Bahrain, etc, etc, control supply, they control the price. This inturn controls much of the US economy.

 

What you do not know about the rhetoric? Often the US presidents of the past have requested elections be held not only in Egypt, but Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and I could go on. The fact that, they do not follow up on this rhetoric, actually could be construed, as no wish to have them. That does not detract from the fact they have requested them to have elections.

Yes they did. What gave you that idea? That was actually one of the reasons he was a thorn in the side of the US. As I asked you before, do you realise he was not the first choice of US support? The fact that after a few years it became apparent that the party of the favoured choice of the US was far more popular than Saddam and preferred by the US. So Saddam refused to hold elections and basically the rest is history with that party. Can you guess what happened to them?

Am I? do I think it is right to force change? That all depends upon the reason for change. To force change of economic conditions also depends entirely on the reason for change. However, what I think about that is Irrelevant, it is not my morals or intention that is in question.

After WW2 it is obvious control was carried out. But prior to ww2 do you know about the trading of the Japanese? Are you aware that there is growing understanding of why Pearl Harbour Occurred. But as Japan was trading and sourcing much from the US using the same trading principles they do now would suggest it was not because they became a compliant nation as you indicate.

Yes it is better studied in other nations since the bases in Japan are best option for the defence of the US from it’s biggest rival since the cold war might also be a reason. The problem you have been blind to is the best strategic interest of the bases is not to control. It is to show that around the globe they have the power to reach their enemy before they can get within striking distance of the US. The fact that it is very possible that Vietnam could raise it’s ugly head again would be a great issue for the US. Suddenly the US economic outlook will become better. This is not because the US has imperialistic intent but because of their foreign debt.

You do realise the intervention of other nations in this so called civil war? The Vietnam war was basically another cold war effort that did not actually have the result the US wished to have but the result was satisfactory to stunt the growth of the communistic element.

The difference is that while you display control, you do not necessarily control in action. Ability to control, is not control. You can be the most powerful and still not control anything even though you have the ability to do so.

This you have not shown, you infer, and show the ability to smite but not the intention to do so. Ability is not equal to intent.

What you consider that the US is the only nation to have those protections in place. You never heard of diplomatic immunity. You do realise that it is a common practice around the globe for nations to have these protections.
Oh, before you state that the bases do not have diplomatic immunity, you would be correct but the point is that all nations have similar protections the US has in Japan. This point would be Irrelevant for the fact that this is an accepted practice throughout the world.

No, you did not. But it sure sounded like one.

Well as I pointed out, that is subjective. It totally depends on what side of the fence you stand on.

Really, you do consider they where all supported by the US?

 

A little back ground on Afghanistan

Read more: Afghanistan War — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html#ixzz1FXXrO7pz
Not a bad read

But one that is better.

So far, so good, to your premise. However, note that the Afghanistan people that opposed the move, of Amin, for a western slant.

http://www.guidetorussia.com/russia-afghanistan.asp
The people of the mountains, whom opposed the western slant, become the Mujahedeen, those people Where now funded and trained by

 

I think the timing was right for the US.. If Bush couldn't sell a war for US hegemmony in Central Asia, he could sell it to "get" the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden in Afghanistan.

 

Back to your example of Haiti and Dominican Republic elections and imperialistic intervention

I assume you are discussing the military intervention of the US?

Now as from my research I see that the US has continued to support those who are elected and who are already in power in Haiti. We might not like the intervention of the US in these affairs but it must be seen as exactly what it is. You would recall the rule of ‘Papa Doc’ (Dr. François Duvalier). This leader was elected by the people of Haiti and effectively change the constitution to declare himself president for life. The US reduced aide and imposed restrictions upon the country after he change the constitution by simply re-writing it. Before he died he again changed the constitution to allow succession. With that his son, succeeded him to president and proceeded to rule the land

http://www.travelinghaiti.com/history.asp
However, baby doc was far less interested in governing Haiti, than he was spending money. Aid from the US and other countries continued to flow.

After being deposed the US flew Baby Doc and subsidiaries to France to live in exile not imposed by the US but by the Haiti people themselves. His life was endangered by the internal coup that threatened to become violent if he refused to stand down.

However, though out the US had held it’s temper, until the military decided not to relinquish power, as agreed.

Did the US instil a government it desired? Yes, however, it was also the government the people desired as they had previously elected them by 67.5% majority vote. He was ousted in a military coup who wished not to relinquish power to the peoples choice.

More interesting read is http://www.travelinghaiti.com/history.asp
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab41
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8456728.stm

These are the histories of Haiti, differing in some ways but mostly saying the same thing.

The US re-installed the freely elected government prior to US intervention, ousting oppressive and corrupt military regimes, who rose to power through not the vote of the people, but the force of military, killing many to gain power. When the US enters such issues, you contend it shows the imperialistic intentions of the US. This does not stand with this situation.

On the Dominican Republic, it would appear to be a similar situation, but I have only made summery investigations so far.
Both these nations, do not show your contention, or what you claim about them.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I've started uni so I had to settle down and get sorted.

The US has bases to stage attacks on other nations and to preserve its hegemony, through force, or as you say intimidation. A good example of this set up would be the various interventions in Latin America, where the US utilized its bases to attack and dismantle government's it deemed bad. Nicaragua has been one such notable point of attack.

No, not at all, just anyone who impedes US interests, which quite often ends up being everyone - ie the majority of people who want democracy and what not.

No of course not, that is stupid. What is the difference between Rome, which had an empire and say, the Britannic tribes in England who also wanted control of certain lands? The difference is one is brutally imposing their foreign rule on others whilst the other is restricted to its own people and not oppressing others. There is a definition of imperialism and it doesn't stand simply on 'intent'. Self interest is one thing, imperialism is another.

Indeed, but its history and policies stand to show it is also imperialistic, something most other nations are not. As to why they are not is not relevant to this debate.

Well the US Orders and newly written constitution in Iraq have made sure the long standing tariffs and barriers around the Iraqi economy which maintained local standards of employment and living have been totally scrapped so that Iraqi manufacturing and agricultural industries will now have to compete with foreign industries, like the US' which are subsidies. Of course Iraq is a poor example of how the US seeks favorable trade, since this was not the intention of the US invading Iraq. Better examples can be found in Haiti, Dominican Republic and Guatemala. Research the United Fruit company to get an understanding of this point.

You mean, the oil for food program or something else?

How? You still have not shown how.

No I used the invasion of Iraq, sponsoring of authoritarian regimes as evidence of US control in ME.

Indeed Iran's venture into such policies did cause quite an upset, but the fact is the ME could not very easily do harm to the US because the US funds these regimes and has troops and bases stationed in the vicinity to ensure this. The presence of the US military has escalated in fact after the late seventies when Iran blocked trade in fact.

Yes, so?

Actually government investigations have shown, as I stated earlier, that retailers are hiking up the prices to make a profit.

When did they do this? I have already shown you the Middle East is a very minor part of the US' source of oil. It gets its primary and majority amount from its top three providers; Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics
All together the Middle East supplies under 8% of US oil needs. Not much power.

Not at all. It shows corporations are in control, and since the corporations supplying the US are almost always US owned, it shows control is still retained amongst the America elites that influence foreign policy to begin with.

Yes the market, or leaders of the market, have control over prices, but resource control is, well quite clearly a part of US foreign policy, as laid out since the end of WW2 as a main objective. This was the whole point of invading Iraq, and also the reason the US has been such a strong ally of Saudi Arabia for the past 70 years.

Of course.

I have proven it, he could subsequently not disprove my evidence or points.As I noted from my last reply to him, he totally avoided an entire page of examples.

Quite true.

So you are saying, basically that it comes down to US interests being served rather than anything else and whether US fp is totally dedicated to economic imperialism which alternates between regimes etc. This I totally agree is the point needed to be addressed, but I believe I have. I think the history of Dominican Republic is quite instructional as an example. Trujillo was installed as a dictator willing to bow to US corporate interests. He was however assassinated in 61 when he began to harass these same groups. Subsequently the US invaded the country in 65 to restore dictatorial, US favorable rule, which was secured under Balaquer. That is the history of DR from 1916 - 1980s in a nutshell.

It creates relationships favorable to its interests, which quite often involved direct control or intervention for a time.

Fair enough. I'll wait for you to do a little light research.

Which other nations "place elites in power" within other countries predicated entirely on its own self interested objectives?

...yes...

Difference between US and others is that the US will intervene to maintain its power - something only an imperialistic hegemon does.

 

Yes it does, especially when these same interests require a lack of democracy, popular representation and any other movement that may endanger the most effective and profitable economic relations.

It is entirely through control. As I said the US favors elites with vested interests which coincide with US economic imperialist objectives.

Some, yes of course.

And the US wants them to remain as well.

Indeed, hence I provided example extensively. For the ME see post #142, for other regions like Asia or Latin America I am happy to provide a list again - the examples there are also far more compelling as they are part of the US' backyard and historically have been deeply plagued by US control.

That's right, and they did. Saddam rose to power with US support. Afghanistan is different as it has no economic advantage to the US as I said the war in Afghanistan was simply to provoke hostility and harm to the USSR. And hence today the US has created regime change in both countries. Don't forget the President of Afghanistan has been in office with immense corruption and has allegedly worked with Unocal on piping projects (although granted these claims sound a little fishy so they may be bs, but the corruption is quite true), is basically dependent on the US for foreign investment, as well as the new Iraqi regime, also marred by corruption, is similarly entirely dependent on US economic aid, especially since existing industries - the remnants of anything survived - are plummeting in their ability to operate.

Good question. This can be answered by the fact it was not a US venture (ie the first golf war) but rather a global effort, hence rule over the ramifications of preceding events was in the hands of an international jurisdiction.

On Afghanistan, again, there were no economic interests in the country. The US supported nuts in thew country simply to provoke Soviet attack. But yes the US did leave the Northern Alliance in power leaving it to battle in a civil war with the Taliban which left many hundreds of thousands dead. Of course when some economic plans did emerge, like a proposed pipeline, the US was quite happy to talk to Taliban ministers, or virtually anyone in Afghanistan. I recall when Bush 2 met with one such minister in Texas.

I think we need to confine control. To me it is a relationships in which the ruling elite (ie government) has a dependency on US support and alliance, which is reciprocally sustained by pro-US economic policy. When however the government invests in social policy that is deemed to dangerous to economic interests, the US intervenes to restore order - ie a new pro-US government.

But they almost always do, and if not are quite often toppled.

ok.

You misunderstand my point. The US controls people by controlling their governments, because the governments maintain domestic control.

You keep saying this yet have as yet to validate this claim. The ME has very little power by way of effecting US interests. I think it must be noted that corporate interests are behind US foreign policy btw, so what harms the US populace is not necessarily bad for the US, do you get me? American politics is quite elitist as well.

Incorrect. Going back to my two examples, Ariistide was freely and democratically elected yet toppled by the US when his economic policies severely restricted US corporate agendas. Similarly in Dominican Republic, the democratically elected leader Joan Bosch (may be in correct spelling) was overthrown in a coup. The new junta then fought against a insurgency that wanted Bosch back into power, but the US funded and even provided soldiers to assist the junta to disperse the unrest.

LOL Yeah a more peaceful, but internally repressive one like that under the Shah whom the US installed as the 'king of kings'.

Iran 'sabre rattles' have only occurred due to the threats made by the US and Israel. During the Iraq war, Israelis ministers made it quite clear they were supportive of a policy for Bush to use a nuclear strike against Iran because it supported Hezbollah.

Iran signed the NPT which neither Israel or Pakistan did. Iran has made quite an effort to join the international community. It is quite obvious why the hate is mutual between Iran and the US, although for very different reasons.

Why?

The idea is the regime will not fall because the US will support it - like the 2 billion annually it gave to Mubarak for example.

Why is not a good example?

Again, the US is not effected by this as the US has significant control over it and again ME oil is not used it is merely controlled as a future means of resource availability.

 

I will reply to the other post a little later.

 

There are a few things omitted form this info, namely that the Afghan government was at times quite hostile to the USSR, which quite consistently wanted more direct control over internal affairs of the country. Things changed once the rebel groups began to make to much noise and chaos. The achievements of the socialist government were almost unprecedented in Afghan history. Education was radically reformed, infrastructure was improved, standard of living rose. Pictures of Afghans from the 70s show quite a modern, especially compared to later, society - women were free to wear what they liked and everyone was clad in western clothing amongst urban sprawls. The US drew the USSR into the country, not the other way around. This was the other point your sources seem to forget. The CIA, under the Carter admin, planned to provoke a Soviet invasion, which could then be used as a political incident to cause extensive havoc on Russian moral. Unfortunately it destroyed whatever government was intact within the country it subsequently lapsed into a seriously backward state.

 

Really? When?

Again when did they do this? I recall Bush admin stating there was a 'need for democratic reform' in Egypt for example but this means nothing and was completely hollow in intent.

When?

No it was the reason he and the Baath Party were put into power in the first place.

Oh really? Who did they support other than the Baathists?

Who was this?

Really? So you are saying the US wanted democracy and asked for it, yet waited nearly 50 years to do something about it?

The US only ousted Saddam when he became a liability - when he invaded Kuwait. Before then he was a good ally.

Prior to WW2, US imperialism can also be tracked, particularly in South America. There were countless interventions and regime changes -even under the apparently 'idealist' Woodrow Wilson. Under his Presidency Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba and Panama as well as supporting continued US occupation of Nicaragua. He also sent US troops to assist restoration of the autocratic monarchy in Russia in 1917, something Russia never forgot, but the US overlooked quite often in remembering historical engagements of the two countries. By 1919, nothing had changed even though "Wilsonian idealism" had managed to espouse grand ideals as laid out in Wilson's '14 points'. These were also meaningless products of rhetoric. During the Paris Peace Conference he was addressed by the Dominican President who said Wilson's apparent ideal to self determination probably meant US marines should be withdrawn form the country. This proposal was completely ignored. Similarly also was the valid plea from a young French speaking liberal intellectual who sought to give the President a well written essay on French Imperialism in Vietnam. This young gentleman wandered if the ideas of sovereign representation in the 14 points could be extended to the oppressed masses of Vietnamese. He was also thrown out of the President's hotel. Unfortunately this man later became known as Ho Chi Minh.

And yet this enemy has dissipated and the bases remain.

Or, that the US wishes to station itself across the globe so as to secure its imperialistic military might. Since no threat against the US exists today this is clearly the most logical explanation.

The US invaded Vietnam over debt? Is that why they also waged a CIA inspired war in Laos and bombed Cambodia back to the stone age?

The US intervened, or attempted to do so, in Vietnam to preserve the old order of European domination.

True....

I have shown intent, particularly in the OP. If we look at the two examples we can study the intent, which is imperialistic, there as well.

No.

A soldier is a diplomat now?

Yes.

Not that I am aware, not in Japan at least.

Oh I agree that it doesn't necessarily show imperialistic intent, but it does show a keen intent to control and maintain a dominant military presence.

Not at all, I base what is moral entirely on the words of US statesmen.

Most. Obviously Libya wasn't, although it is interesting to note the US reaction to the whole situation, and the fact the US wont do anything about Libya until it can determine who is most likely to win.

 

Totally wrong, as I will explain.

hmm....

I will dispute this.

The country was already violent, but anyway, go on....

But you said it only supported democratic or existing regimes? hmmm

That does not prove your point at all. It shows the government was ONCE desired.

Totally wrong, but again I will address this.

Totally wrong again...

It does. I can understand you've done a really quick spate of research but you've got it totally wrong.

Here's a quick historical explanation, with some details;
The US and Haiti go way back. Haiti was in fact the second nation after the US to have a revolution in which a liberal democracy was created and it was the first revolution in which men not only became free in the moral sense but also the legal sense. It was an island of slaves; a colony that was perhaps the most productive and wealthy (ie generating) place in the entire French Empire. in the 18th century, Haiti supplied 75% (in 1789) of the world's sugar needs and was the world leader in production of cotton - the 'oil' of the industrial revolution. It was easily the most prized colony of the French. Hence when the revolution took place (1804) the French quite quickly moved to reestablish order to maintain their source of wealth. The attack failed, but the French imposed an odious debt which seriously hampered the economy (from 1820-30s onward). The Americans declined to recognize the nation until many many years later (1862). The US had relatively hostile relations with the new nation (particularly due to the legal contradictions in regards to slavery). Fast forwarding to the 20th century, Haiti was relatively isolated, as the US did not want Haiti to expand economically. Internally food production was at a level self sufficient for the nation (remember this), however internal political infighting meant the place was quite often unstable.
In 1915, Wilson's admin invaded the country in the name of 'a need to ensure political stability', in which time it appointed its own UNELECTED government which allowed for US corporate takeover of local industries. US Marines dispersed the existing Parliament and put in force a US written constitution, ratified by 5% of the population. According to the State Department of the day Haitians were "inferior people", whilst Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan remarked after a briefing on Haiti: “Dear me, think of it. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s speaking French” whilst his successor, Robert Lansing, continued the idea that “the African race are devoid of any capacity for political organization and [have no] genius for government.”

As Noam Chomsky notes in Turning the Tide (page 119-120);
"The occupation of Haiti lasted for nineteen years. In 1922, the
president imposed in the US-run “free election” was removed in favor of
“an outspoken advocate of American paternalism and intellectual
devotee of Benito Mussolini’s fascist experiment in Italy” when he
“defied American wishes in negotiating a public loan delivering Haiti’s
debt to New York banks.” The Duvalier dynasty was established in
1957, and remains, while the country is owned by a wealthy elite and
foreign (largely US) business, and the population either flees abroad or
languishes in misery in one of the poorest and most oppressed corners of the world, while the State Department heralds constant improvements
and President Reagan lauds the dictatorship for its “determined
opposition” to “Cuban adventurism” and its support for “private
enterprise and economic reform.”162"
Wilson’s invasion was undertaken to block constitutional government and ensure “complete satisfaction of U.S. demands for economic and military control.” It initiated a brutal five-year counterinsurgency campaign and an eight-year military occupation that instituted legal-economic arrangements “which condemned the republic’s population to one of the lower standards of living in Latin America,” while US investors prospered, taking over most of the domestic economy, geared to sugar exports as food production declined. The military government “favored the [US] corporations” and on the major issues, “completely capitulated to foreign interests, ignoring those of the Dominican people.” Its actions “advanced the fortunes of the country’s existing planter and merchant elite” and “proved a tremendous boon to foreign agricultural interests,” confirming “the republic’s place in the world as a producer of agricultural commodities for the industrially developed North Atlantic nations.” Under the US military government, “the quantity and quality of public education steadily declined” and its staff was “decimated.” School enrollment did not pass the 1920 figure until 1935, when it comprised one-third of school age children in a much larger population.

He was quoting the historian Piero Gleijeses at the end. My previous quotes are also taken from this book.

I realize this is only the beginning, but I will get around to the rest I just thought a lengthy introduction was in order to put Haitian history into context. I will finish the rest later and will discuss the Duvaliers and later US intervention. But as you can see, from the outset it has been quite imperialistic.

I explained this briefly earlier - the US supported and maintained dictatorships in the nation also.

Obviously not. In fact they are perfect examples that quite clearly and definitively support my case.
As I said I will finish Haiti off later. Chomsky's book, the one I quoted from, extensively discussed Haitian and Dominican history under US imperialism so it will be my primary source. I will refer his sources also to indicate who he sites - but it is often also government reports and quotes from officials as I used. I also took earlier data from Hopes and Prospects pages 7-9.

If needed I will also give an extensive write up of Dominican history under US imperialism if needed.

 

Thank you, please forgive me, as my reply will be very late, in comparison. I have had a hectic few weeks and feel rather drawn out. After a couple of posts, to insistent misrepresentation of my own words, on another thread, it has been pointed out to me, that I am beginning to become condescending toward others.

Due to the fact, I consider this very interesting, I feel I need to rest, before building a constructive and open debate. I do not wish to be rude, as this would debilitate the debate.

So, I ask for your patients, while I recoup a little.