[QUOTE=Sitnam]
I agree, but for good or ill of other countries when, in the history of time, has a nation ever been expected to put another’s interests first? Disrupting a peaceful economy for better banana prices at home sounds crazy, but thems the rules.
[/QUOTE]
Even if America has no obligation or expectation to put other countries’ interests in front of its own, the country with the previously stable country would be crazy not to hate America after being screwed by it.
http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/AmericanWars.html
It is our policy to interfere in other countries and tell our citizens that we do not. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and he was proven correct. It is about money over principle.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
[/QUOTE]
This of course is a totally non-biased source.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Point taken **Jackmannii **
However,
“This would be more accurately stated as “America has often supported corrupt dictatorships when it suited American interests”. Bad as that is, it’s not the same as “often” disrupting “democratically elected stable governments”.”
[/QUOTE]
No, actually. The original statement was quite accurate as posted. The U.S. specifically intervened to cause the overthrow of popularly elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, and a few other places. It also directly intervened to prevent a democratic election to even occur in a few places: Viet Nam comes to mind. It is true that we often decided to support home-grown dictators who had undermined their own governments–Indonesia, Philipines, Cuba, Haiti, etc., (although the degree to which we participated in those actions ranges from minimally to massively)–however it is simply not accurate to deny that the U.S. “often disrupts democratically elected stable governments for its own agenda.”
[QUOTE=Tristan]
This of course is a totally non-biased source.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Well, the opening paragraphs are certainly misleading in that they pretend that every action of the U.S. military outside the continental U.S. was an act of aggression against some helpless people. Claiming that WWII was some sort of imperialist “intervention” is just stupid. However, the list of actual actions (which Dr. Ali stole from a different site without attribution) is accurate.
A better approach to the list would be to recognize those events that were purely imperialist contrasted to actions that were genuinely undertaken to remove U.S. nationals from the dangers of riots or civil wars. However, there are sufficient imperialist actions recounted to give one pause (unless one champions imperialism).
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
I dunno, Revenant Threshold [if I quote the proper way I’ll screw it up]
“I’m not entirely sure you’re right to disregard the first two points; you’re right in saying that those are things that happen with any country and culture, but due to the U.S.'s dominance on the global arena, they tend to have more of an effect.”
No argument from me…but is it Americas fault people like hamburgers?
[/quote]
In the eyes of those who truly hate America, yes, it is. bin Laden’s explanation for his attacks on America had a lot about American culture, as well as the part where we set foot in Saudi Arabia.
The US markets its mass culture aggressively, and, as you say, it is very popular. And this offends those that are trying to market a competing culture, especially if they don’t do so well at it.
But if you see Supersize Me, you will see that you don’t even have to truly hate America to blame someone other than the consumer for liking hamburgers.
America is the most successful country/culture in human history. We have a huge effect on the rest of the world, both because we want to and even when we don’t, or don’t care to. We are the only remaining superpower - the competition with the USSR is over, and we won, overwhelmingly. Largely because of our popular culture, and our edge in high tech, and our economic might.
But as the last one standing, of course we are going to be blamed, for causing all the rest of the world’s problems, for not fixing all the rest of the world’s problems, for not trying to fix all the rest of the world’s problems, for trying to fix all the rest of the world’s problems and failing, for fixing the rest of the world’s problems and offending those that were profiting from the rest of the world’s problems, as well as for those of the world’s problems that we did cause.
“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”
Regards,
Shodan
America has the right to do whatever it wants to/can.
Everyone else has the right to have their own opinion on America’s actions.
What’s the problem?
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
3.) America often disrupts democratically elected stable governments for its own agenda, often with serious consequences for said state.
My initial reaction to all three of these was, “no shit, but how are Americans implicitly wrong?”
The first two don’t really interest me because I don’t see this as uniquely American, so to some extent it’s all about calling pots and kettles.
I’d instead like to focus on the # 3 argument with these questions:
Since when has a nation implicitly been expected to act against its own interests for the benefit of another?
[/QUOTE]
#3 is more than just “America acts in its own best interests”; it’s that America meddles in the affairs of other nations, where it has no authority or business to interfere, and often against those other nations’ interests.
Sure, America isn’t the only nation ever to do so, but other nations that have done similar things have likewise been criticized for it.
[QUOTE=cowgirl]
America has the right to do whatever it wants to/can.
Everyone else has the right to have their own opinion on America’s actions.
What’s the problem?
[/QUOTE]
There’s a contradiction, though, in that the U.S. has the right to do while everyone else has the right to have an opinion. It invites everyone else to “do” some pretty nasty things to level the playing field, up to and including flying planes into buildings.
But I expect you were being facetious.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
There’s a contradiction, though, in that the U.S. has the right to do while everyone else has the right to have an opinion. It invites everyone else to “do” some pretty nasty things to level the playing field, up to and including flying planes into buildings.
[/QUOTE]
First, the apparent contradiction comes from the difference between a nation and an individual. America can do many, many things that I, cowgirl, cannot.
Also this thread is pretty much about what America does and what people think about it. I don’t see a contradiction there.
Second, there is a massive difference between “having an opinion” and “flying a plane into a building.” While (in my opinion) we have rights to the former, I am in no way suggesting we have rights to the latter.
I wasn’t being facetious: I was pointing out that the message I often get from America is part “we can do what we want and we don’t care what you think” and “why does everyone think poorly of us? It’s not fair!”
I think those sentiments are contradictory. Either do whatever you want and don’t care what we think; or care what we think and take that into consideration when making your decisions. One or the other.
Does America (the nation or the individual, however you wish to define it) have the right to fly planes into buildings? If not, then they don’t have the right to do whatever it wants to/can. And certainly “America” (again, define it any way you wish) has lots of opinions about what other nations/people do.
Basically, I don’t get what you’re saying. On its surface, it looks simplistic, but when you dig down to the heart of it, it’s only completely meaningless.
Anyhoo, regarding the OP’s question, from the cited book:
I don’t know if the authors actually used the word “stable” or if that was an addition by the OP. Where the U.S. interfered (often rather brutally) in Central and South America, these were nations that had recent histories of coups and military juntas, not stable democracies doing fine before the U.S. came in, guns blazing. They might have coalesced into what we now call stable democracies much sooner without U.S. interference, but had I to guess, I’d say it was far less likely before the collapse of the USSR.
If you’re seriously asking why just read Chomsky. Here’s a nice list of interviews with him. If nothing else, he’s very good at summarizing our past atrocities that seem to be a mystery to, well, pretty much no one but us (us meaning the U.S. population).
Remember, terrorism is terrorism when we do it too. We don’t like it when we’re hit by terrorist attacks and other countries don’t, either. This is why public opinion of the U.S. in Latin America, for example, has always been so low – that’s what happens when you kill thousands upon thousands of people, subvert democracy, and support dictators and death squads to advance business interests.
No, that’s why we had to intervene and crush the seed of hope before it could grow too much. A liberal democratic government in Latin America represented a failure of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. It still does, to a certain extent – witness our failed coup of Venezuela in 2002. Washington is getting very nervous about LA nowdays, they’re actually starting to act like a group of nation states with their own vision of their future, like making ties with Europe and China and throwing off the yoke of the IMF. A lot of these leaders would’ve been assassinated or overthrown in CIA backed coups back in the day. Thankfully, the world isn’t quite the same anymore.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Does America (the nation or the individual, however you wish to define it) have the right to fly planes into buildings?
[/quote]
A nations’ “rights” are circumscribed by treaties and international laws, but if these treaties and laws are ignored (which they commonly are, by many nations), and there is no meaningful enforcement (which there usually isn’t), then yes, nations effectively do have the right to do whatever they want.
Why don’t they? They have the right to interfere with democratically elected governments, and to bomb cities, and assassinate foreign nationals, so I’d say yah, if they wanted to fly a plane into a building somewhere else, they probably would have the right to. Why wouldn’t they?
Let me repeat. It is inconsistent to say “I don’t care what you think” and to simultaneously be unhappy that people don’t think well of you. Of course it’s simplistic, that’s why I’m always baffled when Americans complain about “anti-Americanism.”
America has the right to do what it wants to do.
Global citizens have the right to complain about it on message boards.
Americans have the right to respond however they choose.
I just don’t understand how Americans can be upset when people disapprove of actions that America has taken with conscientious disregard for people’s opinions.
The difference between individuals and nations is what complicates things, because it’s the nation that is making decisions on behalf of individuals who may well not approve of those decisions at all. Any given American might be concerned about “anti-Americanism.” In my opinion the focus of their concern should not be the people holding the anti-American sentiment, but the actions (on a national level) that America has taken without concern for international opinion.
In other words, if I direct my ire at America (the nation) and not at Americans (individuals) don’t hold it against me for being against American foreign policy. Hold it against the Americans who made the foreign policy.
The U.S. intervened to cause the overthrow of a stable democratic government in Panama?
Details?
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Take Cuba. Yes, Castro is a Dictator. So was the Shah of Iran, who was not royalty, but an army officer that the CIA put into power in the 1950s.
[/QUOTE]
The Shah of Iran (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi) was the son of the previous Shah (Reza Pahlavi). Mohammed Reza Pahlavi became Shah after the British and Russians invaded Iran in World War II, because they were afraid that Reza Shah was too pro-German. Reza Shah was the army officer who became Shah in a successful coup backed by the Brtish in 1925.
What happened in the 1950s was that an Iranian nationalist, Mohammed Mossadegh became prime minister and Iran nationalized its oil fields. This upset the British (who controlled most of the oil in Iran), and the Americans (because Mossadegh, who America originally supported, drew closer to the Iranian Communist Party), so the CIA and MI6 tried to destabilize Mossadegh’s government and also to convince the Shah to dismiss him. The Shah unsuccessfully attempted to dismiss Mossadegh and then fled the country. Then a group of Iranian army officers, supported by the CIA and MI6, launched a successful coup, Mossadegh was forced to step down, and the Shah came back.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Since when has a nation implicitly been expected to act against its own interests for the benefit of another?
[/quote]
Since there were theories of universal right and wrong based on respect for human rights. One might point out that since America’s founding document espouses just such a theory, it’s looks particularly hypocritical when America massacres and tortures large numbers of people just to advance the business interests of a few of its corporations.
Pretty much. Certainly for most of history nations have done what they wished. it’s also worth noting that the idea of a coherent body of international opinion is a fairly recent phenomenon. Asking what international opinion held in the year 500 is a meaningless question.
Partly, but more because of the growing awareness of the abuses inflicted on certain racial and religious groups, I’d say.
One would like to think that any nation which killed thousands of people for the sake of economic gain would be roundly condemned. However, we can probably agree that the general tone and attitude of the American political-media machine carries more arrogance than almost other body in the world, and this probably contributes to America’s negative image.
Because most other nations believe that their citizens have fundamental rights to remaining alive, untortured, unraped, and with their livelihoods disrupted as little as possible.
That, of course, depends on how success is defined. If it’s defined by promotion of democracy and human rights, America is close to the least successful country in history. If it’s defined by how much it exported its culture and beliefs, then America has been quite successful, though probably not as much as Renaissance Spain or Victorian England.
As for the “it’s not America’s fault that people like hamburgers” argument, it actually is partly America’s fault. America, usually acting in concert with the EU and Japan, controlled organization such as the IMF, WTO, and World Bank. That control was used to create rules of international trade that were grossly lopsided in favor of American (and European and Japanese) corporations, and against the local economies of poor nations. We don’t know how many people would have chosen to eat hamburgers if the hamburgers chains were competing with other options on a level playing field.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
The U.S. intervened to cause the overthrow of a stable democratic government in Panama?
Details?
[/QUOTE]
When we decided that we did not like the Pineapple and felt that he might (someday) do something to (perhaps) interfere with the canal, we went in, killed a lot of his citizens and arrested him as a drug dealer. However, he had been elected and Panama was not in revolution. (Further back, of course, we created the “independence” movement against Colombia, but I am not sure how democratic Colombia was at that period.)
I reccomend the following:
War is a Racket -Smedley Darlington Butler (one of the US’s most decorated soldiers)
Inevitable Revolutions: the United States in States in Central America -Walter LeFeber
[QUOTE=essell]
There are many many people who dislike the USA, but not Americans.
[/QUOTE]
Not really true. Having lived and worked in your fine country, I can attest that there are many people who plain don’t like Americans. Not that they’re completely unjustified in their opinions; many was the time that I was embarassed by the behavior of my compatriots (though I hope I was more sensitive to it than the Brits were).
[QUOTE=Valteron]
I have travelled often in the US and I believe the American PEOPLE are basically good and decent and peace-loving. I think that the problem is that the actions of their government and the military-industrial complex (a term invented by Dwight Eisenhower, BTW) are hidden from them by biased media reporting, and by trashy jingo patriotism that is used to shout down any serious criticism of US foreign policy.
…
Look, I think it can be summarized this way. The US is the only remaining superpower. Its people are, understandably, patriotic, decent and love their country and the brave fighting men and women who defend it. Nothing wrong with that. You have a country worth being proud of. But even though you are a democracy with free speech and a free press, it is very easy for the government and certain news media to dress up gross, self-seeking agressions and defend them with slogans like “support our troops” (or would you rather be a traitor?)
…
My advice to Americans. Get rid of the phoney Hollywood concept that you are the “good guys” in the world and accept that you are nation like any other, capable of good and evil, albeit more powerful. Americans are good, decent folks that can be manipulated by greedy governments, corporate interests and the media they own, and that will always use your quite legitimate love of country as a club to beat down any thinking man or woman who objects to their imperialistic adventures. But you are a democracy, and you can fight back with reason and criticism. People in places like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could not.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if you’re giving us too much credit or too little. Americans aren’t quite the dupes you think we are. A lot of those same people you’ve encountered who strike you as basically good and decent and peace-loving understand exactly what our government is doing, and more or less support it – or at least support it more than what they think the opposition party would do. You don’t have to be a dumb sheep, manipulated by a sinister military-industrial complex into supporting an imperialistic adventure: a lot of decent, reasonable people support the Iraq War, and any number of American foreign policy ventures. Their reasons may be unfathomable to you, or even wicked or moronic. And if so, you’re entitled to think poorly of those otherwise decent people who hold those opinions. (Or, more constructively, you could engage them in a conversation to try to understand their reasons – as I hope they would, if they looked down on you for the opinions you hold.) But just give credit where credit’s due.