Beagle:
Judging from the history of US foreign policy, you mean?
Why, send him oodles and oodles of money, and tell the world he’s a shining example of ”fledgling democracy!”
Unless, of course, he threatens the investment climate. Then, call him a commie, accuse him of threatening his neighbors and a) stage a coup, b) try to have him assassinated, and c) impose heartless economic sanctions; or, if all else fails, d) invade.
An interesting discussion.
Half of US Foreign Aid Devoted to Military: Guns and ammo are an entirely different sort of ‘aid’ than most people in developing countries need. It’s too bad that the people at the receiving end of this military foreign aid are not on this board to provide their opinions: perhaps they would be more interested in food, medicine, education etc.
Kevlaw: Your suggestion that Bretton Woods (the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO) is beneficial is highly controversial, at best. The USA has a very strong influence on the actions of the Bretton Woods institutions, so I am pleased you included them in the discussion.
For example, when it became apparent that their dams, the Chixoy dam and the Sardar Sarovar project in particular, resulted in widespread oppression, death and environmental destruction have caused the World Bank to rethink their policy on mega-projects. In particular,
The IMF consistenly imposes what they call structural adjustment policies on developing countries, which involve privatizing national resources and institutions. Their Water privatization in Bolivia is a good example.
Another website regarding US foreign aid/foreign policy:
Civilian victims of USA foreign policy … for more discussion, see this group’s homepage
Monty: Sarcasm is COMPLETELY lost on you isn’t it? My point was that if we start down the road of trying to teach the arabs a lesson we’re going to have to get truly extreme to accomplish that goal, to break their spirit. In fact i think the only way to do it would be to make a large majority of them question their god. I don’t know what it would take to accomplish that, but I think the razing of Mecca and Medina would be one of the only ways that can be accomplished.
I wasn’t advocating it, I was saying we’d have to do some completely fucked up things to accomplish it, therefore we should go the appeasement diplomacy route.
Ironically this thread was not inflammatory to a single person who is able to objectively analyze the United States and it’s foreign policy. I love the United States, I think it’s a great place to live, that doesn’t mean I have to support it’s imperial tendencies. I do not want an empire, I want a country, that’s all that’s it, if that’s so hard for you to comprehend then I don’t know what else to tell you. In that case you and I are working on such disparate wavelengths that we can’t begin to discuss politics. However if you can seperate America bashing from not desiring an empire, then we have something to discuss.
So while it is your right to criticize anything I say, it’s highly ignorant to accuse me of not appreciating my right to free speech while I am excercising it. I never said you CAN’T say what you said, I just said it was a really dumb thing to say.
Erek
I have qualms for these two…How did the US ever provide tacit support for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Please provide multiple cites.
As to creating a climate of fear and hostility in the Mideast…hah. That has been going on for centuries. Do you think the Arab vs. Jewish riots in British Palestine were caused by America? What about the long standing Kurd vs. Arab conflict? I don’t see how you could seriously argue that the US is responsible for today’s hostility in that embattled region.
Daoloth: I’m not going to go into detail on kevlaw’s post too much. I don’t think the US is responsible for the Middle-East strife. However, we ARE responsible for their hostility toward us. With such things as supporting the Shah, then supporting Iraq in the Iraq - Iran war while selling weapons to Iran at the same time, as well as many other things.
As for the British mandate in Palestine, we are not responsible for that, but we do perpetuate it in it’s current incarnation.
I don’t believe that Israel should be abandoned but the settlements have to go.
Erek
Can anyone point to another country that has conqured an enemy that attacked it first, occupied it, rebuilt it, invested billions of dollars in it, made it safe for the rest of the world and its own citizens, and then left?
Beagle
Perhaps some of the actions you referenced above are being done because the country is trying to depose a foreign installed monarch. A constitution that gives ultimate authorty to a monarch, that practically the entire country wants gone, would probably require a popular prime minister to suspend some parts of the aforementioned constitution. If he is trying to implement a democracy, any way. But in which one of the two cases that Tamerlane or Mr.Svinlesha were referencing (namely Iran or Chile) were heads being collected? Granted, there was violence, but you’re painting those leaders as something akin to Pol Pot. Neither of these was in any way a “grey area.” It wasn’t even a slightly soiled white. It was quite clearly US and British business interests in the respective regions resulting in deaths and oppression which ultimately led to over 50 years of misery for both countries.
There wasn’t even remotely a case of “brutality” or “genocide” that would warrant another infamous “regime change” in either of those two situations.
You know, I’m hearing a lot of Americans repeat this bit of “damned if you do damn if you don’t… so Marines lead the way” nonsense as if it’s somehow true. Can you point to at least two examples of where the US was roundly chastized and received international scorn for not “doing something about it” other than Israel?
Can you point to any examples of America doing this to any country besides Japan?
Erek
Why isn’t Japan a valid example? Because it demonstrates his point?
I suppose we didn’t properly ‘conquer’ Germany, but they sure as heck got a tidy sum from us…
Nietzche: Rwanda
Brutus: I didn’t say Japan WASN’T a valid example, however it is in fact a thin one, as it occurred over 50 years ago, and we haven’t repeated it since.
Germany didn’t attack us first either, we attacked them first.
Erek
Since we have not properly ‘conquered’ any nations since, that would be the last relevant example.
As to Germany, you are hinting at Lend-Lease (and other assistance programs)? Material support to one’s enemy is an acceptable cause for war, I would think. Just looking for clarification.
(Ignoring the side-argument that it would have been better for Germany to just ‘bite the bullet’ than to declare war on us…)
I have spent the last two hours googling to determine the veracity of the Glaspie transcript. It shows up on a myriad of web pages - but no reputable sites. I humbly withdraw that item from my list. Aside - I expected to at least find a reputable site dismissing the transcript as fraudulent, but I couldn’t find a single mention of it.
Certainly there have been problems in the mid-east for centuries - many of them caused in large part by earlier imperial powers and certainly the countries of the middle east have been quite able to create strife on their own. But, until fairly recently the hostility has not been directed so overtly towards the west.
From Reagan’s bombing of Libya to repeated vetoes of UN resolutions to support for some of the more aggressive policies of the current Israeli government, the US has not gone out of its way to show much love for the arab nations. Quite the opposite.
I wouldn’t begin to argue that the US is wholly responsible for all the hostility in that region. But I do believe that US foreign policy has contributed a great deal to the unrest and - more particularly - the hostility that is now directed towards the west.
I might agree that IMF & World Bank are long past their sell-by dates and probably now do more harm than good.
But I think the frameworks for financial cooperation put in place at the end of WW2 contributed greatly to stability and prosperity in the post-war years.
I have lost track of the argument a little here. I think the US contributions to recovery in Germany and Japan and numerous other countries after the war and in many other situations since are shining examples of good US foreign policy.
Are you suggesting they are not, mswas ?
Do you consider client regimes a form of conquest? Would the Shah of Iran or Hamid Karzai’s government in Afghanistan fall under conquest to you?
Erek
To an extent, yes. But we don’t generally level a client state before we exert influence on them. Bullet holes in a stadium are easy to spackle over; But Japan was left without any major cities intact, I believe.
kevlaw: My point is that the majority of modern examples of good US foreign policy were a direct result of the Marshall Plan, and that we haven’t hit one out of the park since, and the Marshall Plan was in the era that brought us to hte forefront as the supreme world power. In otherwords we leaped out of the gate, and have been dragging ever since.
Erek
Yeah, tell that to the sailors of the USS Reuben James. And, although that Nazi aggression didn’t provoke a war, Germany’s ally did attack us, and Germany declared war on us before us on them.
Daoloth: Point taken, my history is a bit skewed. What I said detracts from my point, which was that we haven’t had that kind of success since the Marshall Plan, of which both Germany and Japan were beneficiaries.
Erek