Yes, but that was a action by one Minister. You can’t says he would have followed thru on it, and based on the fact that Spain just plain didnt give up it’s colonies i can say the chance was tiny.
21 dead, Certainly unfortunate, but hardly "we brutalized them in a war".
Eh, what? 1930s sure, but 80s?
And “Everyone else is doing it, why can’t we?” is the argument of a spoiled 4 year old child, not a modern democracy.
That really isn’t the point; the USA was the first democracy to become imperial, some would argue it is still the only - though obv. regional imperialism - ‘spheres of influence’ as they are sometimes politely called - are also apparent. In other words, what is being done is being done not only in your name but at your democratic behest. As when both Bush and Blair were RE elected after the WMD debacle was known publically.
So the qustion is, what do you do with that; the answer has broadly been to avoid transparency and morality; invade, otherwise control, while obfuscating and spinning bogus narratives at home - mainly to serve the interests of corporations who either own the media or the politician.
Not a great template for moving forward.
But sure, as i mentioned pages ago, all human interaction is built in hierarchy.
Read it. The action had been approved, it was being followed through by the time the US entered the war. Spain had gone through with it. The whole government was set up for it, the people had been elected. It was in a way, Spain’s reaction to prevent losing those colonies.
Speaking about elections, it would be some years before the people of Puerto Rico would have a chance to vote on their local governments and officials again, thanks to the US.
There’s no way, given Spain’s entire history of colonization, that they would have gone thru with it. Until fairly recently, they NEVER gave up a colony willingly.
Um, they did go through with it; the new constitution was enacted, elections were held, the whole shebang.
It wasn’t a case of Spain “giving up” Puerto Rico, but the new constitution did, indeed, grant more self-rule.
Yea, again, read about it. The idea was not to let the colonies go away, but to give them more self-rule while still being connected to Spain. And that level of government self-governance in Puerto Rico was only re-approached 50-ish years later. And even the current local government lacks some controls and freedoms in areas that that Charter, in 1897, granted.
What? Britain and France were democratic when they were imperial powers. Hell, imperial Germany was even a constitutional monarchy. If you really want to go back, the Peloponnesian War cost democratic Athens its empire.
Hah! They gave up Florida. Twice!
“Limited Autonomy”. still Spain owned PR, lock stock and barrel. The King had full authority to annul any decisions by the legislature.
Based upon the timeline of other colonies PR would have been free around the 1970’s or so, as I said before.
America’s role in the world is the greatest force for good mankind has known. It raped fascism and communism, as it will do radical Islamic terrorism.
So the answer to the OP’s question: never.
I agree with this. Further, whatever your opinion is regarding the Iraq war, it was not an example of imperialism. We took over the whole country, but Iraq did not become a province of the United States; we returned sovereignty to them. That is not what colonizing powers do.
Again, similar to the current situation with the US. Perhaps worse in the current because that charter allowed some powers PR currently does not have.
You mentioned liberation, and removing what Puerto Rico government had achieved at the time followed by few years of military rule and a wait of almost 50 years to achieve something in terms of government similar to what they had with Spain is hardly a liberation. It was a regression.
Invading and occupying countries is still imperialism, even if you withdraw the occupying force after changing the local regime.
Withdrawing is EXACTLY what the colonizing powers did after WW2, because a proper democracy cannot justify long bloody occupations of foreign lands; for that to continue you need an autocracy.
The phrases “greatest force for good” and “raped” have quite opposite connotations. There are several on-line thesauri: if “rape” was the aptest synonym that you could find for “defeat,” I’m afraid it makes your perspective seem … incautious.
Wrong. It is quite normal for imperialist conquests to assume the form of protectorate, tributary, or vassal. For examples: Much of Napoleon’s Empire was ruled by vassal kings. A Cambodian Prince ruled French Cambodia. Nebuchadnezzar the Great tried several Jewish Kings from the House of David as rulers for his Judah tributary. And recall that Pontius Pilate tried to delver a certain prisoner to the Jewish King of a neighboring tributary state.
Despite neo-con plans, Iraq didn’t become a source of loot for the American Empire, so wasn’t a “tributary” but it does seem fair to call it a protectorate; even after the 2011 withdrawal there have never been less than 25,000 Americans stationed in Iraq.
So we tried, but failed to impose our will on Iraq? If we have so much power over it, why did our plans to loot fail?
I believe that you have failed to show how the United States’ relationship to Iraq is the sort of puppet government in the examples you provided.
For example, Pontius Pilate. The proper analogy would be if the United States had full control over Iraq and reserved the right to impose the death penalty only by our decree. The Iraqis bring a prisoner before the Governor of Baghdad (an American) who has full authority to order capital punishment. The Governor says to the Iraqis to take him and punish him with something short of death. The Iraqis persuade the Governor to impose the death penalty.
This is so unlike any of our relationships with foreign countries in every respect that it is, respectfully, absurd to mention it.
He wasn’t comparing our relationship with Iraq to the Roman relationship with the province of Judea. He was comparing our relationship with Iraq to our relationship with Herodian Galilee In the late Republic and early Empire, a lot of Rome’s relationships were with client kingdoms…states that were independent, but economically dominated by Rome and who subordinated a lot of their policies, especially foreign relations, to Roman interests. Herod wasn’t a subject of Rome and could rule his kingdom however he wanted, but he was smart enough to know it was Roman money and the threat of Roman intervention that kept him on the throne, so he tried not to piss Rome off too much.
That’s the comparison he’s making…we don’t rule Iraq, but we invaded to overthrow the old government and put the new government in place, and without American help, the government of Iraq would have a lot of trouble staying in power.
What’s a country supposed to do if there in that position? There are big powerful countries and small weaker countries in the world. If you’re in one of the smaller weaker countries, what policy should you try to follow?
I would have thought the sensible policy would be to seek an alliance with a big powerful country of your choice and use that alliance to protect you from other less friendly big powerful countries. But we’ve been told that it’s wrong for big powerful countries to agree to these alliances, even when the small weaker countries ask for them.