Here, you don’t even have to read. Just watch, an then again, tell me about that “perspective” of yours:
Overthrow, America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
You’re welcomed.
Could you summarize this for us? I’d like to watch it but it’s a little long for at the office. What are the other regimes discussed?
Synopsis: the author has picked 14 American interventions/overthrows (limiting them by the fact that all of them directly resulted in the overthrow of the current Governments) beginning with the Spanish/American War, and then went on to analyze the results of same by using a three-pronged approach: asking how the nation got involved to begin with, why they did it, and lastly, what are the historical results (positive or negative) of each intervention.
Due to time limits, he goes into the details of three of them in particular: Spanish-American War, the myriad of broken promises afterwards that ultimately led to Castro, the CIA-backed overthrow of Iran’s Muhammad Mossadeq when he tried to wrest back control of Iranian oil from the BP, all under the specter of a completely unexistent “communisnm” in Iran, and lastly, the overthrow of Arbenz in Nicaragua when he tried to get back some unused land from the American Fruit Co. He mentions how influencial said period was in the formation of Che Guevara’s views…who went on, shortly after, to meet Castro in Mexico to help plot Castro’s own invasion.
Highly recommended.
PS-Should be of especial interest to 'luc, as it was hosted by The Mark Twain House and Museum and the author/speaker, Stephen Kinzer, ex-NYT reporter, prophetically quotes The Great Man himself on a number of occasions.
Why is Political Science the only scientific disciple where the word ‘should’ comes into play. Issac Newton didn’t have to deal with people saying things ‘should’ fall faster. Pythagoras didn’t have to deal with people arguing a^2+b^2 should = c^3. People are predictable otherwise there’d be no Sociology or Psychology…it’s a small step then to larger systems.
Yeah, except what was stated was “all the other things we did make us even slightly safer from nuclear attack ? They didn’t.” That, you cannot prove. I didn’t say America didn’t interfere, you just can’t say it did nothing to stop an eventual nuclear confrontation.
According to McNamara in both Fog of War and In Retrospect he gives a firsthand account in the war room during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The highest echelon in America was shitting itself.
:rolleyes: What was said was “only thing that protected us from nuclear attack were our own nukes, and the non-suicidal nature of the Soviet leadership.” I just pointed out that a Soviet dictator has a firmer finger on the button and that finger belonged to a man with a tempter.
Satan?
Just wanted to thank you for the link. Since it was only a lecture, and not something where I would have to watch the video to get the whole content, I did listen to the whole thing. Nothing too surprising, although I wasn’t aware of the back story on the Cuban revolution. History’s a bitch, isn’t it? It can come back to bite you 100 years down the line.
I’ll bet most people think the Cuba Libre mixed drink (rum, coke, and lime juice) was invented by Cuban expatriates in the early 1960s, when actually it goes back to the independence struggle 100 years ago.
They did do just that. They locked people up without trial. It was called internment . The IRA’s action led to it. Here in the ROI we did it as well to IRA suspects. Any country will/can do it. It’s always been counter productive in the long run but when fear is ramped up because of real and manufactured reasons, civil liberties are always at risk because of reactionary policies.
Nope. The electoral college system may make it look like that but the actual popular vote was within a couple of percent. Dubya actually lost the popular vote the first time but the electoral college system with a little help from the Supreme Court gave him a win. That’s only taking the people who voted into account.
Just want to add my two cents about American culture. The idea that America ‘forces’ its culture on others is preposterous. If the popular kid at school begins wearing blue jeans, and everyone else wants to wear blue jeans, you can’t blame the popular kid. He just wears what he wants, and others want to be like him. He isn’t forcing anyone else to wear the blue jeans. The same goes with American culture. We make good movies/music/books/whatever, and others end up wanting it. No one is forcing it upon you.
Cheers,
NoALittleH
Har, har…so is that pretty much your entire rebuttal?
Becuase political science isn’t a science, and as far as I can tell does not hold itself out as one. An older meaning of the word ‘science’ is simply knowledge or learning in any field.
- SoP, proud holder of a master’s degree in Library Science.
Whooosh!
Political Science is a science, albeit a social science, and a comparatively young one, dating back to the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, and using the scientific methiod to study the way that communities distribute power and resources.
-CA, proud holder of a master’s degree in Political Science/Government
From Wikipedia:
I’m sorry, what were you saying?
I’m sorry, Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to guide you, not an end in itself, so:
What were you saying?
Very good observation. But America does use her power to change other countries also. The bottom line in hate is fear. Other countries fear America not being certain what course she will take. Fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering for the person who hates. Ala Starwars. The only way to overcome fear is to walk right through it by gaining knowledge of the feared. But unfortunately money has the biggest voice in this world. Almost everything is about money.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia…last time I checked you will find those books in the REFERENCE section of your local library, but fine:
or
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/polisci.html
Now I urge you to look up ‘pedantic’