I spent some time in Chile. I met Chileans that loved Pinochet and had certificates from him framed and hung on their wall, and I met others that had seen some of their family “disappeared”, or spent months in hiding to avoid that same fate. I’m curious what you think the negative ramifications of the coup were, or how significant of a role you think we played in it, that makes it one "of the biggest mistakes ever made in U.S. foreign policy. Could you elaborate on that a bit?
Imperialism is a function of relative military prowess. I don’t think that the US, on the whole, is any more imperialistic, and arguably less so, than any other comparatively powerful country would be.
The US gave the Philippines its independence on July 4, 1945. When they asked us to leave Clark Air Base and Subic we decommissioned both in 1992.
I hardly call the imperialism.
Or skynet for short.
More sophisticated drones, automated warships, more clandestine data trawling and those ominous Google soldier robots - not far away now.
Again, it was the Queen who staged the coup. Hawaii did have a functioning representative/republic constitutional Monarchy. Queen Liliʻuokalani unilaterally, and with no support outside the Royal family, abrogated that constitution, bringing back what was close to a absolute Monarchy, with race based citizenship & property ownership, the taboo system, and so forth. Note her new rule* lasted but three days. * She had no legal right to do so, and was thus overthrown and a Constitutional Republic set back in place. Five years after the Republic of Hawaii, in which Polynesians had a two-thirds majority voting block in the House, asked the USA to annex Hawaii. The vote was unanimous. Note again- the Assembly was 2/3rd Polynesians. The Natives wanted to be part of the USA.
It was like if in 2017, Queen Elizabeth sent the Guards in, dismissed Parliament, announced that only pure Anglo-Saxons could vote or won properly, all previous Royal lands returned, and her power returned back to the level of George III.
Then the Constabulary walks in, quietly and without opposition or bloodshed removes her from Parliament and the British Government goes back to how it was doing things before, but no Queen.
Would you say the Constabulary “staged a coup”?
That sounds almost exactly how I’d expect a British coup to go down. Everything pretty much back to normal by the end of the week.
I can buy that.
OP immediately begins debating how to stop American imperialism while entirely skipping any question of why overseas interventions are inherently bad. But then again, this is boffking. He has already demonstrated (in other threads) that he has an obsessive fixation on seeing America’s foreign policy in 18th century terms. In boffking’s world all American policy decisions are driven by racism and a genocidal hatred of “brown people,” and he absolutely refuses to consider alternative explanations.
But that said: American overseas interventions have been successful and unsuccessful. Further, I would consider the consequences of what would happen if the US did NOT intervene in certain conflicts. Much of our foreign policy today is driven by a failure to intervene in Rwanda. I fail to comprehend how places like Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya would be better off without American intervention. Afghanistan in particular was not even a conflict of our own choosing… We suffered Bin Laden’s attacks for a decade with minimal retaliation until it became obvious that our passive strategy was a failure.
But like I said, arguing any of this with boffking is futile. His other threads have demonstrated he has no interest in reading our arguments, and when pressed he demonstrates an astonishing ignorance of the subject matter. Waste of time, there. :rolleyes:
-2, +5, what’s that come to…?
While you’re presenting us with that arithmetic, did you read your own cite?
Next you’ll be saying that Poland is part of the American empire because Poles want more American troops there to defend against Russia.
Weird attempt at equivalence. It’s a gov that got elected 3 months ago. It isn’t long term national policy tying the nation state to, say … NATO.
Again, from the same story:
This is NOT a new initiative from the new government. This has been in the works for a few years.
ETA: See also: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-idUSBREA4107020140502
So what we have now is that the Filipinos want the US presence to counter what they perceive as Chinese Imperialism.
That’s a line from the Melian Dialogue.
Funny thing. The Dialogue was written by an Athenian, as a sort of apologia for the Athenians slaughtering the Melians. But in actual fact, the Athenian control over Melos ended when Athens lost the war.
Strength through military dominance is itself a transitory vanity.
Where does “strength” for a nation come from if not military dominance? That’s certainly been the historical measure of “strong” nations, wouldn’t you agree?
The conventional story is that the CIA, under Kissinger’s direction and advice, was instrumental in the overthrow of Allende. The result was a long and ugly dictatorship. One of the biggest negative ramifications is that the U.S. sacrificed its moral allegiance to the ideal of democracy, aligning with a dictator on the grounds of opposing communism. (Something Reagan practiced rather a lot.)
If you disagree with this, go ahead and say why. It’s pointless for you to ask me to write an historical essay. What specific details do you wish to debate?
Yeah, look at the Romans. Two thousand years in power and then they suddenly lost it all. The same could happen here in America. Right this moment, we might only have seventeen centuries left.
You have mentioned before that you keep trying to change the Wikipedia entry to this and that it keeps getting changed back. The reason it keeps getting changed back is because your belief in this regard is utter nonsense.
This is 100% correct.
That’s incorrect; Liliʻuokalani never actually proclaimed the new Constitution or abrogated the existing one.
It’s also worth noting that the existing Constitution also had racial requirements for voting, as well as very strict property-and-or-income based ones. It was also signed under the threat of force.
This was during a period in which royalists boycotted the Republic, and followed an 1897 election with a 1% turnout. The announcement of the annexation treaty led to more than half the island’s population signing anti-annexation petitions.
That’s not a remotely comparable situation, as Parliament wasn’t installed by force a few years prior for the benefit of foreign aliens.
She moved to do so, against the advice of her entire cabinet.
Cite? "natural born citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, or naturalized Citizens of the Kingdom " could vote. Whats wrong with that?
The Constitution did have some property requirements for the Senate, but so did the USA for a time.
No, read it again: When all the work was done, there were over 21,000 signatures- men’s and women’s in about equal numbers. When one considers that the population of Native Hawaiians at the time was less than 40,000, this is an impressive number. Half the Native Population. And we know the shenanigans one can do with petitions. Like faking signatures, signing it multiple times, and so forth.
However, not a single native member of Legislature voted against annexation.