USA: The Good Empire
-
How the USA has coerced another country when it decides to conflict in view with the US's foreign policy.
I cannot give all the links at one shot, since there is too much.
But three is enough for today:
Indonesia 1958: Nixon, the CIA, and the Secret War
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Indo58.html
The CIAs Greatest Hits
http://www.doublestandards.org/ciahits.html
Uribe Would Be Involved in the “Final Offensive” Against Venezuela
-
Why did you only quote half of my sentence and forget the preceding words before the comma?
Again, please elaborate an factual example, in your own words and understanding, How the USA has coerced another country when it decides to conflict in view with the US's foreign policy.
All you have done is quote links of US actions without even understanding the background and consequences of inaction.
What do you know about Venezuela and the pain in the a55 called Hugo Chavez? Did you know he secretly funded insurgents and provided FARC with weapons to destabilize Columbia? Do you even know the history of Columbia, Ecuador and Venezuela (clue: google greater columbia) when you start throwing the links while accusing US to be a Global Hegemon (and not understanding what a 'hegemon' is).
By the fact that the US had to resort to covert operations in countries like Cuba further demonstrates that even with its sheer economic power and economic might, countries like Cuba still refuse to bow to US policies. How then can US be considered a "Hegemon"?
If US is a global hegemon, why are the Russians constantly attack and criticise American policies instead of being intimidated into supporting it? Think!
-
By the fact that the US had to resort to covert operations in countries like Cuba further demonstrates that even with its sheer economic power and economic might, countries like Cuba still refuse to bow to US policies. How then can US be considered a "Hegemon"?
You have very limited understanding of USA agenda and how USA operates.
I will have to do more propaganda work.
OAS Secretary General Sees No Evidence of Venezuelan Support for Colombian Rebels
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3345
$300 Million From Chavez to FARC a fake
http://www.prensarural.org/spip
Do not be fooled or misled by USA propaganda.
Remember the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction"?
We must calmly look at facts and evidence, not look at propaganda or disinformation.
I will do more propaganda work in this area.
-
I'm not misled by US propaganda simply because you got your facts wrong. Evidence of the $300million between Chavez and FARC was NOT discovered by the US government though they probably had an idea.
The evidence was discovered by the Columbian government during a cross-border raid into an FARC camp in the Ecuadorian side of the border.
Finally, what does THIS have anything to do with US being a global Hegemon?
-
Finally, what does THIS have anything to do with US being a global Hegemon?
Did you know he secretly funded insurgents and provided FARC with weapons to destabilize Columbia?
-
Glad you've figured out the quote button pretty well.
Still your point is? Its a South American affair. The US didn't fly in their B-52s and park them over Ecuadorian and Venezuelan airspace did they?
-
So what if the United States is a global hegemon? Work with her and enjoy the fruits lah.
You want to attain the DRPK's standard of living, go right ahead. Move to Pyongyang and see if they welcome you with open arms.
I suspect you have little working knowledge of what hegemony is fully about, not just selective claims about "tin-pot" actions of a superpower.
The people of the world who have prospered under American "hegemony" are more than happy to let it continue, yes and that includes nations like Singapore and probably the whole of the free world.
-
What about Iraqis?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
What about Iraqis?
It's the real world we're talking about. Sure, some nations get buggered by American over-confidence and over-estimation of the costs of liberation, but I'll say that given the long run, Iraq might actually be a success.
-
The pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new West,They were determined to make that new world strong and free, an example to the world.
Some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.And we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier , a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils.
Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice,I am asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier.My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age
Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?
All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. And we cannot fail their trust, and we cannot fail to try. -
hopefuly this will give maybe a little teenie bit of an idea of the USA of today.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I don't have to read them. The same reason I don't read "hotsheets" about UFO sightings and Little Green men. I sincerely question the neutrality of venezuelananalysis.com. Besides, the US has not used force to coerce Venezuela and Bolivia have they? If countries like Venezuela are not bowing to American will, how can US be a Global Hegemon if it can't even be a hegemon of its own backyard?
You haven't answered the key question. Can the US dominate and coerce the world into submission to its policies?
I don't agree US is not hegemon because he did not coerce the world.The world is comprised of many country ,not one country ruled by US.Every country got it's own culture and history ,and they are proud of it. US is a hegemon because,he often treat himself as a super super power,nowadays the international affair is through dialog and discussion,Why US attack Iraq and Afghanstan without concession of UN.I listen to US pop music ,and movie.I respect him,but i don't get used to his over estimation for himself.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
That scenario only exists in a fantasy world where the USA is actually a communist or fascist state. Again, please elaborate an factual example, in your own words and understanding, How the USA has coerced another country when it decides to conflict in view with the US's foreign policy.
The US military flexes its muscles only when its interests are being threatened or a regional security threat emerges in its area of interests.
seems that u often look at US point of view,The US military flexes its muscles only when its interests are being threatened or a regional security threat emerges in its area of interests.
how about other country's interest,just like in the gang movie ,the boss don't like someone else ,and decide to beat him up,u think that's a bully or just because is good for the boss' interest,u think it's fair.I think most country of the world don't like US.Look at the western country ,only england align with him,because they are the big brother and family member of US.France ,german, all get their own interest.Most of the muslim world don't welcome US.When bush go there ,there are always a lot of protestants.
World is becoming multipolarity,US always want to act like a boss ,and guarranty his boss status.But that's definitely will change,some one predict that US economy will defer in the future.Because their economy has saturated,u don't see any new increasing point.And the rest of the world is catching up,through reformation and build ,modern economy model.
-
Sure, some nations get buggered by American
You are willing to support USA aggression on small weak states.
I do not.
I will oppose USA military aggression.
I will not support.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
You are willing to support USA aggression on small weak states.
I do not.
I will oppose USA military aggression.
I will not support.
Is that a qualified statement of support? Note that I am telling you that certain events have happened.
I don't recall learning that information = tacit support. But we live in the real world, and should get with whatever nasty things that happen because sometimes in the larger scheme of things, it's not the aggression that you think it is.
-
But we live in the real world, and should get with whatever nasty things that happen because sometimes in the larger scheme of things, it's not the aggression that you think it is.
What larger scheme of things?
USA global hegemony?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
What larger scheme of things?
USA global hegemony?
I.e the long run of history.
Hindsight is a very easy thing to use. Opinions change over time, alliances shift, what we deem as aggression today, may not necessarily be so say 40-50 years down the road.
-
Aggression is aggression.
Kill is kill.
Lies are lies.
You can debate about whether the war has positive effects or negative effects, but aggression is still aggression, you cannot change that.
I think the war has some good effects in that it pin down the USA troops in Iraq and drain away their military manpower.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190661/
We can have a few more years of peace since USA military is busy in Iraq.
I hope USA stays in Iraq until 2020.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Aggression is aggression.
Kill is kill.
Lies are lies.
You can debate about whether the war has positive effects or negative effects, but aggression is still aggression, you cannot change that.
I think the war has some good effects in that it pin down the USA troops in Iraq and drain away their military manpower.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190661/
We can have a few more years of peace since USA military is busy in Iraq.
I hope USA stays in Iraq until 2020.
Whatever rocks your boat.
Slate is really to be taken with a barrel of salt, as are some of your sites of reference.
Go read up on Council on Foreign Relations if you want a more balanced viewpoint.
-
Go read up on Council on Foreign Relations if you want a more balanced viewpoint.
CFR can be considered to reflect the views of the political elite in the USA.
It was originally set up to coordinate policies with its british counterpart, the RIIA.
Chatham House had close institutional relations with a number of other similar organizations, especially in the Dominions.
It also has a parallel organization, which was regarded as a branch, in New York.
This latter, the Council on Foreign Relations, was not founded by the American group that attended the meeting at the Hotel Majestic in 1919, but was taken over almost entirely by that group immediately after its founding in 1919.
This group was made up of the experts on the American delegation to the Peace Conference who were most closely associated with J.P. Morgan and Company.
The Morgan bank has never made any real effort to conceal its position in regard to the Council on Foreign Relations. The list of officers and board of directors are printed in every issue of Foreign Affairs and have always been loaded with partners, associates, and employees of J.P. Morgan and Company.
According to Stephen King-Hall, the RIIA agreed to regard the Council on Foreign Relations as its American branch. The relationship between the two has always been very close. For example, the publications of one are available at reduced prices to the members of the other; they frequently sent gifts of books to each other (the Council, for example, giving the Institute a seventy-five-volume set of the Foreign Relations of the United States in 1933); and there is considerable personal contact between the officers of the two (Toynbee, for example, left the manuscript of Volumes 7-9 of A Study of History in the Council's vault during the recent war)...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_10.html
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
I.e the long run of history.
Hindsight is a very easy thing to use. Opinions change over time, alliances shift, what we deem as aggression today, may not necessarily be so say 40-50 years down the road.
definition of aggression never change,since everything is changing ,but human is still human,aggression is sth relate with human activity -
Rokkie.
US is a hegemon because,he often treat himself as a super super power,nowadays the international affair is through dialog and discussion,Why US attack Iraq and Afghanstan without concession of UN.
Firstly, US is a superpower. If your definition of "Hegemon" is "superpower", then I think you should do further research before posting here and aiding Poh Ah Pak in his rather skewed cause.
US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban were hiding there. Otherwise, who would give a hoot about that place in the middle of nowhere? Look at Afghanistan today, they are no longer ruled by the Taliban tyrants. Look at Iraq after they took out Saddam? They don't have to live under the Saddam's tyranny anymore.
Sure there is sectarian violence, terrorist bombings day in day out. People question whether Iraq is truly better off with American intervention. I ask, "Are the Americans responsible for the actions commited by the terrorist? Who is at fault when a suicide bomber decides to walk into a bus stop and detonate himself? The Americans?" Please! Don't blame the yanks for problems that already exist and instead swept under a rug. Besides, its the Americans that are paying for it with their economy and blood of their troops now. What are you complaining about?Poh Ah Pak,
I don't wish to offend you. But you have failed to understand the meaning of "Hegemony", needless to say, "Global Hegemony."
Everything you've spouted here is nothing but anti-American propaganda based on your definition of "Global Hegemon."
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Rokkie.
Firstly, US is a superpower. If your definition of "Hegemon" is "superpower", then I think you should do further research before posting here and aiding Poh Ah Pak in his rather skewed cause.
US attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban were hiding there. Otherwise, who would give a hoot about that place in the middle of nowhere? Look at Afghanistan today, they are no longer ruled by the Taliban tyrants. Look at Iraq after they took out Saddam? They don't have to live under the Saddam's tyranny anymore.
Sure there is sectarian violence, terrorist bombings day in day out. People question whether Iraq is truly better off with American intervention. I ask, "Are the Americans responsible for the actions commited by the terrorist? Who is at fault when a suicide bomber decides to walk into a bus stop and detonate himself? The Americans?" Please! Don't blame the yanks for problems that already exist and instead swept under a rug. Besides, its the Americans that are paying for it with their economy and blood of their troops now. What are you complaining about?Poh Ah Pak,
I don't wish to offend you. But you have failed to understand the meaning of "Hegemony", needless to say, "Global Hegemony."
Everything you've spouted here is nothing but anti-American propaganda based on your definition of "Global Hegemon."
its the Americans that are paying for it with their economy and blood of their troops now.
============
they choose to do so ,no one he can blame but blame himself
========================
and why Taliban attack no other country but US.Because ,US,spokeman of christianity,are not welcome by muslim,some of my malay friend say,they think it's the time for holy war.And Taliban is the extreme cults of muslim,the conservative choose to be silent,but they choose action.
it's ancient story,if i am wrong please point out
=====================
If your definition of "Hegemon" is "superpower",
hegemon is the atitude problem, superpower is another thing
================================
Look at Afghanistan today, they are no longer ruled by the Taliban tyrants.
i don't know what's going on in Taliban right now,but if u think US attack them for their interest ,u r totally wrong
-
Well, your friend's definition of the Taliban is somewhat twisted. A lot of people have trouble understanding what the Taliban really is.
The Taliban Regime, was the de-facto government of Afghanistan until the US led invasion. Think of it sort of like the Nazi party. It was a ideologically motivated movement, that become a regime after becoming the dominant power.
The US attacked the Taliban when it refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden after the events of September 11th. The Taliban openly challenged the US to bring evidence that the Osama was responsible for the events of September 11th or they would not hand over Osama Bin Laden.
During their government, the Taliban frustrated UN aid and NGOs efforts in providing relief to the Afghan people.
They were responsible for ethnic massacres of Shia tribes.
If you ask me, I'd say the Afghans are definitely happier now. At least they don't get killed for being a Shia.
-
same question why Osama Bin Laden attack US not the rest