Us Economic War Aims: Main Lines Of Approach

As I said before. Im going to be showing almost every case in which the USG lied about a threat to national security from a foreign government but first, this is why they lie.

This document is from the US State Department and Council on Foriegn Relations' War and Peace Studies Group:

So all that is lucid and clear. They have to use "propaganda" to engineer consent for their "economic war aims" which include, "the full use of the world's economic resources" and enforcing "restrictions on sovereignty."

Continued..

 

George Kennan was the head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. In the following document, PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking:

So the doctrine is to use harsh measures if necessary to ensure US control over 50% of the resources, and it's exploitation of the world. But it also warns that objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization are incompatible with these goals so they should accept the fact that we will not be liked by the "unpeople" for maintaining the disparity.

Continued..

 

Why don't you pick a single incident so we can really look at it? You create these threads then post in some cases dozens of different links and articles. No one wants to spend that much time reading a researching the issue. Each one of these incidents is more than sufficient for an entire thread. It's like you attempt to throw walls of text at people to overwhelm them and keep them from responding. I think most people just abandon your threads because you post 3 or 4 news links/articles everyday that go in different directions.

 

But the second document I posted has everything to do with the first one. It expands on what the first document says. I dont understand, but I'll stop. You may be right about the wall of text and people not wanting to read.

 

All you have to understand is that ignorance is a US military apologist and is not interested in anything you post as it shows the US military and government in a very bad light. It disproves his apologist lines and thus makes him look a fool.

 

Thank you, give us time to digest this and we can have a good discussion.

 

So who's the number 1 apologist? You keep refusing to answer.

 

I think it is obvious to anyone with a few brain cells what the Americans do. From their constant invasion of Latin America states from the early part of the 20th century to back American business interests like United Fruit to their carving up of Indonesia in the 1960's they have murdered their way around the world.

The evidence is outstanding and undeniable and under the pretence of fighting communism they tried to defeat socialist governments who wanted the resources of their own land to benefit their own people not big American business interests,insert Guatemala,Honduras,Haiti and many many other states in this category.

They have wasted millions of innocent lives in Latin America,Vietnam,Cambodia,Laos,Indonesia,East Timor etc to achieve their aims. Anybody who defends these animals should hold their head in shame.

 

The Third Man, et al,

To an extent, I have to agree.

(COMMENT)

As MGEN Butler (USMC Ret) once said: "War is a Racket." He has a book by the same name. He admitted: " In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

It is all about commerce and money. The big play in the game is to "maximize the wealth of the shareholder." The patriotism and the fight against aggression and communism are the mantra we use to make ourselves feel good when we intervene to protect profits. It is the rationalization and justification that Washington uses to defend their actions in the name of the "Ruling Elite" (the people that pull the strings).

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone really argues in opposition. I think there is a tendency for both Wall Street and Congress to believe that - "What is good for Big Business is good for Wall Street; and what is good for Wall Street - is good for America. And than makes it a national interest.

(COMMENT)

This is where you run into trouble.

The very first thing they beat into your head in Grad School for Business is: "Maximize the Wealth of the Shareholder." This is the Gordon Gekko approach to "Greed is Good" and "Greed is Legal." It doesn't matter the country or the region of the world. It is all about living the high life - the good life - being part of the rich and famous - the beautiful people of high social standing. And for that to happen, there has to be a class system in which there are the out-of-work and poor (people like me), there has to be a working middle class (to pay the taxes and fight the Wars of Commerce), and those that manipulate the puppets-on-strings in Washington, DC (The Ruling Elite).

This is all "honorable." It is taught in school. The rich and powerful influence the Washington political puppets, who enact laws and arrange public funding of wars, that serve the interest of big business (Wall Street and the Rich & Powerful). We teach this in school. To be a lobbyist, the string that pulls the politician, is a perfectly good profession.

It is all about money, greed for more money, wealth and power. It is American as "Mom and Apple Pie." You cannot be ashamed of an institution that has turned this into an art form. If that were true, being a Politician , the marionettes of big business, would not be a life long pursuit.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

It's actually more about maintaining dominance over the world by colonial means. The central banks and multinational corporations are already rich. It's more about power and control.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute and honest of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out that:

As Brzezinski knows well, concern that Europe and Asia might move on an independent course is the core problem of global dominance today, and has been a prime concern for many years.

In 1972, Washington was advocating higher oil prices. According to a study by V.H. Oppenheim, based on interviews with US officials:

Henry Kissinger confirmed that this was Washington's strategy:

So the reason for the US "security role in the region" (protecting the Saudi regime for example) is that it "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies" which "improve America's competitive position."

That's just some examples explaining the rationale for controling Persian Gulf oil.

Continued..

 

I do not think I ran into any trouble,I believe that I described exactly what has and is happening to this day. Your post was very good,well 70% of it anyway.

 

You bring up a really good point about the education system and how it indoctrinates people. The more educated they are the more indoctrinated they are. Very good observation. Chomsky talks about it a lot. He even talks about how the system is rigged in a way that filters out the people that cant be indoctrinated by forcing them to do silly projects and assignments that only the obediant would be willing to do most of the time. So the rebellious types say, "this is ridiculous. Im sick of this (*)(*)(*)(*)" and then they leave.

 

General Smedley Butler is somewhat of a hero to most Marines. I know that from almost day 1 in boot camp, we learned about him and his career (especially his winning the Medal of Honor on 2 different occasions).

However, it was not until later that I started to learn about his later career. For example, why was the most senior and respected Marine not given the position of Commandant after the previous one died? Why was he almost court martialed? And after learning of the "Business Plot" was he never heard from again?

Pretty much any Marine will admit that towards the end, he pretty much went crazy. Making allegations that foreign leaders were murderers, that there were conspiracies around every corner, and that the American Legion was going to take over the nation.

Yes, General Butler did make that statement. However, he also made claims that there was a private army of over 500,000 men that was ready to overthrow Preaseident Roosevelt. All led and organized by an unemployed bond salesman.

I give a lot of respect and credit to the General. But when you look at his life after around 1925, things really take an almost surrealistic twist. Taking a leave of absense, he effectively beame the Chief of Police of Philadelphia. He held that position for 2 years, when the President refused to grant him any more extensions and to return to active duty. Many believe this is where his hatred for Presidents Coolidge and Hoover came from. President Coolidge order him to return to active duty, then a few years later President Hoover passed him over for Commandant.

And of course he was also a major figure in the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Which at the time was in strong competition with the American Legion (which he claims he was supposed to lead if he supported the coup).

And even the leaders of a Congressional Investigation (led by 2 prominant Democrats) declaired his "Business Plot" to be a complete hoax.

When the General wrote his book Racket, few deny that he was in failing mental health. He was bouncing between political parties constantly, running as a Republican but supporting President Roosevelt. Supporting a strong isolationinist and prohibitionist platform, he was also involved strongly in the then war between the two largest Veteran groups in the nation (he claimed the American Legion was controlled by banking interests).

So yea, he said those things. During that erea he said a lot of things that were called into question even during that time and found to be nothing but figments of his imagination.

 

Those 2 prominant Democrats were probobly imperialists themselves. The Democrats and Republicans are 2 wings of the same bird. We essentially have a one party system with 2 factions of the business party.

 

Bill Clinton's Mentor and Council on Foreign Relations Historian, Prof. Carroll Quigley: The aim is to create a world system of control and domination

Excerpts from Prof. Carroll Quigley's book, "Tragedy and Hope:"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMVVQLA_dGg"]Bill Clinton speaks of Carroll Quigley at acceptance speech[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_CemfucArU"]Carroll Quigley - Elite Historian & Clinton's Mentor[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqStjsmgmCM"]CFR Historian Carroll Quigley[/ame]

 

In the words of CIA-Chief Historian, Gerald K. Haines:

 

Mushroom, et al,

Outstanding Post; and very accurate.

I should have (but didn't) mention his failing health.

(COMMENT)

Having said that, I would like to point out a couple of things in mitigation.

• No one questions today, the influence of Big Business, and the benefits that Big Business derived from US military interventions that MGEN Butler. Even today, we refer to them as Banana Republics, after the Banana Wars.
  
  
  • National City Bank
  • International Banking House
  • Standard Oil
  • United Fruit Company
  • Domino Sugar
  • Amalgamated Sugar Company
  • etc

  ​
• Today, there is little question that the military industrial complex, both then and now, made extraordinary profits from the military interventions. During MGEN Butler's career, the US sent troops to Latin America at least 15 times (conservatively speaking); depending on how you count (not counting covert action, now in open source).
  
• MGEN Butler also mentions assassination plots by the US targeting foreign leaders. The very theme suggests that this would be most difficult to prove, but it is known that the US was either directly (as in Cuba as an example) or indirectly (as in a number of countries) involved in a number of plots. While I totally disapprove what the Church Committee did, one of its outcomes was a list of some of the significant events. ( http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/pdf/ChurchIR_6_Addenda.pdf ) MGEN Butler was not crazy when he made the comments about assassinations. The US has a very sorted history in this regard.
  
• In terms of the American Legion and the large number of armed aggressors, he may have been a little over the top on this. But there are a number of anarchist activities still operating in the US; as well as, a number of disturbing militia groups. (I am not counting neo-Nazi and similar organizations.)

You are quite right to point out the shortcomings in using MGEN Butlers comments. But you can certainly see today a definite association between major commercial concerns and the military engagements by region. Not a day goes by that someone doesn't make an association (rightly or not) with defense contractor or major oil corporations with the US intervention in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Like I said before, what is good for Big Business is good for Wall Street; and what is good for Wall Street is of a national security interest of the US. I think this was his intent.

Yes, while MGEN Butler may have been a little mentally unstable towards the end; but, his observations were not all that crazy. Remember, that they also said BG Mitchell was crazy when he predicted a Japanese Aerial attack decades before it happened.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Good, then when will the world finally rise up and invade us? Cause if you aren't willing to do so, then you are just pacifistically accepting American hegemony.

Our job is the keep the globe as stable as possible to allow for economic integration and expansion into the developing world. If you don't like the way we do business, don't do business with us but don't tell us how to do our business.

If we're so God (*)(*)(*)(*)ed evil DO SOMETHING about it.

 

Rubbish. Like the world is stable. Do you ever read a newspaper? America is making the world unstable and has been for years.

 

Whatever. You pretend as if there wouldn't be big wars if the USA wasn't engaging in little tiny ones.

Our little tiny conflicts are what keep regional actors in check and prevent world war III.

 

Yeah, cause Grenada was such a mushroom cloud laying island. What a joke.

 

You don't like American hegemony you can always move to another planet.

 

SiliconMagician, et al,

The Hegemony, and its future, is a concern; to be sure.

(COMMENT)

On the temple of Apollo at Delphi, there is an inscription in ancient Greek. I am told it says: "Everything in Moderation."

At first, it sounds lofty and containing a profound inspiration. But it is just the kind of thing a crafty "Oracle" would say to a visiting King seeking insight. Aristotle would call it a circular paradox. That is -- presumably "moderation" - itself - has to be taken in "moderation." To some, the implication of "aggressiveness," would not be intuitively obvious.

So to is The Hegemony. There is a time for acceleration and a time to put the brakes on - and slow down.

Relative to the successful Hegemony and World Leadership, there is an applicable Chinese proverb:

"If You Fail To Honor Your People,
They Will Fail To Honor You;
It Is Said Of A Good Leader That
When The Work Is Done, The Aim Fulfilled,
The People Will Say, "We Did This Ourselves."​

The strength of The Hegemony rests almost entirely on three pillars.

• Elegant Diplomacy
• Military Prowess
• A dynamic & prosperous economy

With the loss in the effectiveness of just one pillar, the entire structure is weakened. In the maintenance of The Hegemony, the application of our resources must be balanced. We cannot concentrate on one, to the exclusion of the others - "moderation." The recent lack of success or satisfactory outcomes that The American Hegemony has experienced in recent decades has rests with these simple concepts. America reputation as an honest broker, a land of integrity, and a people of honor - did not develop overnight and did not emerge out of jealousy. It emerged like a like a towering volcano grows - through shear strength and power. As the Leader of the Free World, we simply did not endear ourselves to the people of other nations by acting in their best interest in balance to our own.

We need to bring The American Hegemony back into balance or - we risk losing it completely. We need to demonstrate that America can help resolve problems without always resorting to military force. Yes, there will be times that force is required; but, again we should not forget "moderation."

The economy should not just be to support military goals and objectives, but to also bring us to a better national outcome.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

These are the guiding principles (not The American Hegemony). The nation needs to build on these basics.

• Establish Justice,
• Insure domestic Tranquility,
• Provide for the common defense,
• Promote the general Welfare,
• Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

In doing this, The American Hegemony will become naturally stronger and become the definition of the new 21st Century reality; with a culture that the rest of the world will gravitate to and embrace; not because we want them to - but because they want it.

"
The People Will Say, "We Did This Ourselves."​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Absolute crap. Do you really believe all the (*)(*)(*)(*) you write? Your grasp of the geopolitical situation is weak,very weak.

 

The Third Man, et al,ther

This is a valid point. I'm not so sure it was sound point. It presupposes that if the US had not taken the action it has (stepped outside the equation), that some other nation or event would not have made an aggregate change and created chaos or instability.

(COMMENT)

What is probably true is that the US does not exhibited the knowledge, skills and abilities in diplomacy that other nations demonstrate as an admirable trait. The US is a military hegemony. As such, it more often than not uses muscle to achieve its ends, or economic/monetary incentive (alla 1920s style racketeering and bribery). In coalition efforts, it is frequently noted that it is the US way, or no way --- you're either with us or against us. Particularly in the last couple of decades, the American view is projected as either black or white (similar to the descriptive phases: "Coalition of the Willing" versus "Coalition of the Unwilling"). But, while there are anecdotal examples of diplomacy, these efforts are normally threats and born of discussion followed by achievement and compromise. In fact the word "compromise" in higher leadership circles is a catch phrase meaning "we gave-in" or "we caved." It drives the position that the American way is the only way and any other line us totally unacceptable.

A second driving force behind the diplomatic adoption of military solutions is the older adage that: "What America need is a good old war to get the economy going." I can't tell you how many times I heard that in the 1980s and '90s. It is as if the general population saw "war" as an employment opportunity, and a boost to the economy. While it is not exactly a truism, larger conflicts did generally put more people to work and lowered the unemployment rate.

This leads us to an entirely different topic on how the lack of reinvestment in America shapes its economy and diplomacy --- what impact it has on the militaristic attitude of the country.

But in general, the Middle East and Persian Gulf are less stable today - than the were in the 1980's; before massive US military interventions. All the countries effected by the Arab Spring (endorsed by the US) are less stable today than they were before hand. The US promotes destabilization efforts throughout the world, focused in governments that have been less cooperative with the US. And the Palestinian-Israeli Problem is a classic case of America lacking the diplomatic skills to achieve a stable environment; beneficial to both sides. And this has been going on for more than half a century.

So, we cannot demonstrate that US intervention (active or passive since the end of the Krean War) has contributed to stability; because we don't understand what the alternate reality might have been if the US had allowed certain regions to achieve there own destiny.

Most Respectfully,
R