-
That seems to be a profound difference. Especially when compared to the Congo or most of the other European held African colonies.
-
you seem to imply that we did pilage third world countries before the Spanish American War. Can you name them? Or am I misunderstanding you?
You’re forgetting here that the USA took every step to prevent the EU from develloping a military force independant from NATO. So, obviously the USA thinks there’s an advantage in keeping some form of control on european defense.
And of course, such a stance implies that the USA must maintain a military presence there. Even if Germany didn’t insist on keeping US military bases, the USA would still want to have them if at all possible.
Americans are involved in the world because history has given that heavy burden to them.
When the Americans have withdrawn from the world, the result was no less than two world wars. American power certainly prevented a third twice (Iran and Korea) and perhaps more often.
(Another reason Americans are leery of an independent European military.)
As one of my heros said,
"Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. "
George C Marshall
Secretary of State
5 June 1946
Harvard Graduation
Sorry I cannot further develop this line of discussion. It is time to go earn some bird seed.
Forgive my ignorance, but can you deliniate a couple of those steps?
I think this may change in the coming years. I don’t think America will “pull out” completely from Europe. But I think we will see a steady decline in the European force structure. The war on terror will simply demand it.
Because America is the richest, most prosperous, most powerful nation on Earth and regardless of any lip-service to anti-Americanism most of the rest of the world still wants (and desparately needs) a piece of our money, food, and military protection.
Try asking Russia. Or China. Or Germany. Or best of all, France, and see where that gets you… 
Originally Posted by clairobscur
You’re forgetting here that the USA took every step to prevent the EU from develloping a military force independant from NATO.
Here isa link showing the US being “ furious over plans put forward by Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg in April 2003 to launch a completely separate EU military planning unit, which US believed would compromise the role of NATO”.
Marginalizing the Atlantic Alliance in favor of ad hoc coalitions, the US in its dual role as sole superpower and as a friend/ally of Europe, puts pressure on European governments individually to obtain their support, which tends to encourage division between Europeans. The Iraq crisis is a case in point.
Each time Europe takes a tiny step towards organizing its own defense dimension, it runs up against US opposition. Defense investment in NATO is the only thing that interests the US. Clearly the US only wants a transatlantic Europe and is opposed to an autonomous one, even when allied with it.
Yes, but it also clearly states that by the next feburary the US’s complaints were “subdued”. Even if those complaints were still pretty vocal, it would hardly be “taking every step” to prevent…
Vocal and textual yes. Any actual actions taken? I’m just asking.
Clearly you are not saying that the US refusal to pay for an independant EU military is itself opposition to it.
I don’t think you have demonstrated any evidence of this at all. Clearly we disagree on what “clearly” means.
One should note that the last person to respond to this challenge did so by engineering two planes to be flown into the World Trade Centre, thus successfully acheiving his stated aim of bringing about the redeployment of almost all of the US troops in his native Saudi Arabia.
A request to “bring it on” does not specify precisely what is to be “brought”.
At least you tweaked that little mantra a bit to make it more accurate.
Still, you have to admit, his plan didn’t exactly work too well. We still have troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, et cetera. On top of that, we have troops in Iraq. And as a cherry on top of all that, we have troops in Afghanistan, after booting his Talibuddies, and holding a election there. And as a little after-dinner cocktail, we have Special Forces in Pakistan, Phillipines (assisting in the fight against their terrorists), as well as several of the Stans.
Yep, got us on the run, he has.
His only stated aim was to remove troops from Saudi Arabia. ‘His’ horrific , monstrous plan was IMO to cause massive loss of life and provoke a war with the West in Afghanistan. To actually destroy those twin columns and provoke a war in Iraq must have represented success beyond his wildest dreams.
Of course he isn’t winning. I merely argue that whatever he wanted to acheive with his sick stunt, the US has provided him propaganda gifts akin to all his Eids come at once, and that challenges like the one I quoted tend to invite attacks not by national armies but by isolated psycopaths to whom ‘victory’ is suicide associated with hundreds or thousands of civilian deaths.
Right, well, you read anything short of humping the flag as anti-American.
The reason is that most of America is still in an imperial mode. We believe that it is our duty to spy on the Chinese and Russians, and liberate the oi- er, people, of Iraq. We believe that if we don’t, all kinda of evilness (Communism, Islam, etc) will be unleashed on the world (read: America). The other countries are more of an annoyance to our position of power than anything else.
We really don’t give a shit-fuck if it doesn’t involve us directly, and we’re too stupid to see things that will affect us in the future, or indirectly. Cite: Africa, Asia, South America.
Then there is the manifest destiny and “because we can” thinking.
OK. Let me phrase it better. The USA tried to block every step towards an independant european defense force. It also tried to prevent European countries from launching an independant global satellite positioning system (which has a lot of military applications), for instance.
To be more exact, the USA isn’t even opposed to an European military force, but to the concept that this force would have the means to operate outside of NATO. For instance, a major point of contention is the creation of a purely european command structure, that would insure that said european force could operate independantly, even if the USA (hence NATO) was opposed to a specific operation.
Of course, the USA isn’t going to threaten EU countries or such things. It exerted pressures on european countries, and in particular on Germany and the UK, and tried to divide them.
My point was that the USA was and still is opposed to the creation of an european military force independant from NATO. To my surprise (I didn’t expect it would turn this way), it now seems to me that this force is going to be created, though it’s going to take a long time. This policy is logical (from the US point of view, I mean) but in order to defend this position, the USA necessarily must stay closely involved in Europe. You can’t insist on keping the european militaries under the mostly american-controled NATO flag if the USA doesn’t contribute significantly to European defense.
No. What he means (or so I suppose) is that the USA is very interested in EU countries raising their military expenses, and insist a lot on this. But they don’t want these expenses to be used to fund a independant military, but to reinforce european militaries within the frame of NATO. He meant that European (not American) defense investment in NATO is the only thing that interests the USA.
As senseless as ever. Was there a sale on paint-huffing materials in your area?
Curious that you leave out the only example where we didn’t actually think about what would happen in the future: Europe. We hemmed and hawed on the sidelines as the most destructive war in the history of world began to unfold.
Don’t tell other posters to “shove it” in Great Debates.
You two knock it off as well, or take it to the Pit.
Eh, the whole Mexican War and Manifest Destiny, when we basically went on a war of conquest with Mexico. Not QUITE pillaging the third world, but pretty damn nasty. Most of the latter was done by private citizens-the most famous example would be William Walker who went and invaded Nicaragua, declared it a state, and basically became a dictator.
The government had a sort of “wink and nod” attitude towards this kind of thing.
After the Spanish American war, it got worse, with the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the various invasions and overthrows all over Latin America, mostly for the sake of corporations.
Not to mention the recognition of the renegade nation of Panama for the purpose of setting up a convenient government to make the canal deal with.
His plans are more long-ranged than you are looking. Of course he knew he couldn’t win an outright battle against the United States. However, what he could do is create some chaos, divisions and instabilities in the world, and long-term recruit more people to his cause. And, with the help of Bush’s $125-billion-and-counting Al Qaeda recruitment campaign sometimes called “the Iraq War” (which must be going better than Osama could have possibly imagined given that it is going worse than I could have ever imagined), I say that he must be sitting pretty happy right now.
Of course America isn’t as bad as the ancient athenians. Or perhaps it is, after all when the athenians erased Melos of the map they abstained to use the following words from their pre-conquering speech: human rights, democracy, liberty, etc.-
I like americans, I really do. Bob Dylan is american, Samuel Barber and Gershwin are americans, a lot of nice people I personaly know are american and lots of dopers who I wish I will someday meet in a “dopefest” are also americans. But america as a country, and it’s goverment. is one of the most effective and hipocrite of all the empires we have known.
And things are only getting worse.-
I don’t doubt that in an alternate universe were my country, Argentina, is the hegemon or bully of the block, things are much worse. Powerfull people are pricks powerfull nations are worst.-
But in this universe, the weak, the poor, the excluded see U.S.A, if only as the symbol, of opression, injustice, misery and poverty.-
Of course that presents a problem for most americans, like brutus or msmith, who see their country as the best damm thing after the discovery of chocalate.-
Athenians of Pericles time also considered their empire as the best thing ever not just for them but also for the best of the known world… I really hope that it ends better for you.
The law of gravity is universal.-
First of all, it is not entirely true that the United States has worked to implement its imperialist policies entirely by indirect support of local thugs since the Spanish-American War. It’s more accurate to say that it’s often unclear how much US involvement there was, because no one has had the courage to launch an investigation. For instance, there’s plenty of evidence of the CIA assisting in the overthrow of the Guatemalan government and the subsequent supression of dissent, but exactly how much involvement there was will probably nnever be known. And then there was that little dust up in Vietnam.
Secondly, what exactly is the profound difference between having your own military or intelligence agency enforce rules against the will of the people of a particular country, and setting up a puppet government to do the same? Morally they seem the same to me.
Nobody seems to realize that we are STILL dealing with the wreckage of the world, left over from 1919! Basically, Europe has attempted to commit suicide TWICE (1914-18, and 1939-45). In additon, the half-baked treaties and colonies set up by the european empires continues to plague us to this day. Take Africa: did the US cause the mess that France left behind in Algeria, Chad,Niger, etc.? Or Belgium (that gem of human rights)…when Belgium abandoned the Congo to war and chaos (after 75 years of stealing the place blind, who raised their voice to protest?). Or the Middle East: who set up Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.?
Personally, I am an isolationsit: we (the USA) would be far better off if we had never intervened in WWI. But we did, and look at the world today…it aint pretty! So, to answer the original OP, yes, the US intervenes in a lot of the world…but only because most of the world is pretty screwed up…and a lot of the mess dates back to a place called Verailles, in 1919.