The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capatilism)

[Art]

The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capitalism)

I've moved this from the USSR thread as it doesn't belong there


Originally Posted by sid_galt
"I advise you to look at the cynical and biased nature of your post which has been provided without ANY justification.

Odds are, without the USA, you might have been slaving under Communism. Hate me for saying it but it's true."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean as opposed to slaving under one of the many dictatorships the USA has supported

This list includes only direct intervention of a military nature by the USA in other countries' affairs since world war 2. If you include economic and covert actions the list becomes huge.

Year Country Action Taken


1947 Greece Military Backing
1948 Peru Military Backing
1948 Vietnam Military Backing
1948 Nicaragua Military Backing
1950 Korea Killing Civilians
1950 Puerto Rico Military Action
1954 Vietnam Military Backing
1957 Jordan Military Training
1958 Lebanon Military Action
1959 Haiti Military Action
1961 Cuba Secret Invasion
1962 Vietnam Military Action
1964 North Vietnam Bombing
1964 Panama Military Action
1965 Vietnam Military Action
1965 Thailand Military Aid
1965 Peru Military Aid
1966 Laos Bombing
1967 Vietnam Military Action
1969 Cambodia Secret Bombing
1969 Vietnam Military Action
1970 North Vietnam Bombing
1970 Oman Military Assistance.
1971 Laos Invasion
1971 Vietnam Military Action
1972 North Vietnam Blockade; Bombing
1972 Nicaragua Troops
1973 Cambodia Bombing
1974 Vietnam Trade Embargo
1974 Zaire Military Aid
1975 East Timor Support of Invasion
1975 Morocco Support of Invasion
1976 Indonesia Military Aid
1976 Philippines Military Aid
1977 Pakistan Military Aid
1977 Zaire Military Aid
1977 Indonesia Military Aid
1978 Guatemala Military Aid;
1979 Afghanistan Military Aid
1979 Cambodia Aid to Khmer Rouge
1979 Yemen Military Aid
1980 El Salvador Military Aid
1980 Honduras Troops
1980 Iraq Military Aid
1980 Cambodia Military Aid
1980 South Korea Military Aid;
1981 El Salvador Military Aid
1982 Lebanon Troops
1982 Guatemala Military Aid
1982 Afghanistan Military Aid
1982 Iraq Military
1983 Lebanon Troops;
1983 Nicaragua Blockade; Arming Rebels
1985 Chad Military Aid;
1985 Honduras Military Aid;
1986 Nicaragua Military Aid
1986 Libya Bombing Terrorism To destabilise the country.
1988 Iraq Military Aid
1988 Colombia Military Aid
1988 El Salvador Military Aid
1988 Turkey Military Aid
1989 El Salvador Military Aid
1989 Panama Invasion;
1989 Cambodia Military Aid
1990 El Salvador Military Training
1990 Guatemala Military Aid
1991 Iraq Invasion;
1992 Somalia Invasion .
1992 Angola Military Aid
1993 Iraq Bombing
1994 Haiti Troops;
1994 Colombia Military Aid
1995 Turkey Military Aid
1995 Mexico Military Aid
1997 Rwanda Military Aid
1998 Afghanistan Bombing
1998 Sudan Bombing
1998 Turkey Military Aid
1998 Guatemala Military Aid
1999 Yugoslavia Bombing
1999 Iraq Bombing
1999 Guatemala Military Aid
2000 Israel Military Aid;
2001 Colombia Military Aid
2001 Iraq Sanctions; Bombing
2001 Afghanistan Bombing;
2002 Afghanistan Bombing;
2003 Iraq Invasion

That enough justification for you?

 

[Burnsys]

in fact that list is incomplete,, i can't see any of the terrorist dictatorships of latin america in the 70'. trained in the school of americas and suported by US..


PD: i love this one >>> 1988 Iraq Military Aid :yuck:

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow, not sure how many times I've seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why don't you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion

 

[fourier jr]

here are the assassination attempts against foreign leaders since WWII:
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia
1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia
2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord
2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons

 

[Art]

in fact that list is incomplete,, i can't see any of the terrorist dictatorships of latin america in the 70'. trained in the school of americas and suported by US..


PD: i love this one >>> 1988 Iraq Military Aid :yuck:

I didn't include indirect support such as training etc as the list would become too long.

Incidentally the point of this thread is not to criticize the American people but their government's foreign policy which has remained relatively unchanged throughout successive administrations and to try to highlight the differences between the way a lot of Americans view their interventions abroad and the way the rest of the world views them.

 

[Art]

Wow, not sure how many times I've seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why don't you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion

As you are obviously very au fait and knowledable about this information and therefore not one of the ignorant here's a little test for you. Can you provide the details and the reasons behind oh, let's say the first 6 items on this list?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And let's see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and there's the assassination attempt on a US president... oh and there's even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on Earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...

 

[Art]

Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And let's see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and there's the assassination attempt on a US president... oh and there's even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on Earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...

The test was to give the details and reasons behind the first 6 items on the list. As you haven't / can't do so I guess that classifies you as one of the ignorant people you referred to.

 

[Yonoz]

What's your point, Art? What are you claiming?

 

[Art]

What's your point, Art? What are you claiming?

Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.

 

[fourier jr]

Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

the US had nukes in turkey at the time, pointing straight at the soviet heartland. same with britain. the warsaw pact was created in response to the US creating nato.

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

the facts are out there if you want to know what they are. there's no reason for this ignorance, unless you just want to be ignorant & misinformed.

And let's see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

well i wouldn't oppose apprehending terrorists who attack/kill civilians, american or not. i can totally understand why terrorists would want to do such things though, it's no wonder when you look at what the US has done to people in other countries. off the top of my head there's 100000 people liberated in iraq, for example, or millions of starving homeless refugees in afghanistan.

 

[alexandra]

Wow, not sure how many times I've seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why don't you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion

Pengwuino, provide evidence for what you say. "Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread". Well, ok - I don't know the history you refer to. Please enlighten me (with reputable references, please). Oh, and another request: will you please stop making these personal attacks - stop calling people who disagree with you 'ignorant'; this is not the way intelligent arguments are conducted.

 

[alexandra]

Incidentally the point of this thread is not to criticize the American people but their government's foreign policy which has remained relatively unchanged throughout successive administrations and to try to highlight the differences between the way a lot of Americans view their interventions abroad and the way the rest of the world views them.

Well put, Art - I want to state that this is my intention as well (I've already stated this in other discussions, but it does not hurt to reiterate my position).

 

[Yonoz]

Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.

Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?

 

[alexandra]

Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And let's see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and there's the assassination attempt on a US president... oh and there's even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on Earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...

Pengwuino, please provide your sources of information. How do you KNOW this? And nobody is trying to turn people against 'the US' - what does that mean, in any case? Did anyone say anything about American people? No! Nobody said 'Americans are bad/evil'. We are not arguing about silly things. We are trying to look at the big picture to see what's really happened in the past so that we can understand what's happening now. It is what we do: we try to understand things by being informed and by questioning and not blindly accepting what the powerful want us to believe. That is what thinking people do - and that's all we're trying to do.

 

[Yonoz]

well i wouldn't oppose apprehending terrorists who attack/kill civilians, american or not. i can totally understand why terrorists would want to do such things though, it's no wonder when you look at what the US has done to people in other countries.

You can understand why someone would want to kill civilians, but you cannot understand the causes of the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

[alexandra]

Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?

Yonoz, I'm answering on my own behalf (not anyone else's - others can speak for themselves).

I will come out with what I am trying to point out here: it is my understanding that capitalism is by its nature destructive. Capitalism (and its representatives - the US administration, the UK admininstration, etc) causes wars, death, suffering, environmental degradation, social dislocation, etc. It deprives humanity of resources that could be better used for our further development.

It is in the name of securing cheap resources (raw materials such as oil) and lucrative contracts that many wars are fought. Very few people benefit from these wars (the very rich do) and many, many ordinary people suffer as a result of them - either by dying or by having their taxes spent on killing people or because of depleted uranium used in the new 'hotshot' weapons that great minds are totally wasting their potential developing.

It makes me furious to think about the brain-power being expended on developing 'better' ways to kill human beings when these minds could be working on important things like solving our environmental problems.

I have nothing against the ordinary people who live in any country whatsoever who do not have the power to make these devastating decisions, though I do wish they would question their social institutions and the prevalent ideology critically so we can get over this disgusting phase of social (dis)organisation that depends on killing and general mayhem and get on with doing worthwhile things. There - please feel free to question me further if I did not make myself clear.

 

[alexandra]

You can understand why someone would want to kill civilians, but you cannot understand the causes of the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yonoz, is this a serious question? Tell me, why Iraq? And please, do NOT say 'WMD' or '9/11'. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. So ok, why Iraq?

 

[Informal Logic]

Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. ...Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion

Anyone familiar with history who is not ignorant and is not fooled by propaganda can see the truth, which always lies somewhere in between. All powers do good and bad things, and the US is no exception. Without critical views (as allowed by democracy) power would corrupt and there would be no balance or possibility for improvement.

Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.

And therefore I agree with this conclusion.

Ironically the ability for discussion on these topics is an exercise of democracy that right-wing people seem to want to suppress, or at the minimum seem to over react to, probably because it threatens their neat little perceptions of the world. I believe I speak for several members in saying how tiring it is to keep reading posts that reflect this mentality.

 

[hypatia]

1947.greek Civil war...Britain sent 40,000 troops to Greece and gave financial aid to the government, which became dependent on Great Britain's military to stay in power. On 21 February 1947 the British announced that they would cease providing aid to Greece and Turkey, and would not continue its support after March 31, 1947, the day of Greek elections. The UK was rebuilding after WW2, and simply needed the man power back home.
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania were channeling Russian weapons/support/aid into greece.
Our government {USA}could see no end to the communist push. Each gain,would serve as a stepping stone from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war{remember greece was blown to bits by the germans}, offered opportunities for further Soviet conquest.
The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino, provide evidence for what you say. "Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread". Well, ok - I don't know the history you refer to. Please enlighten me (with reputable references, please). Oh, and another request: will you please stop making these personal attacks - stop calling people who disagree with you 'ignorant'; this is not the way intelligent arguments are conducted.

Are you kidding me? You need a reference as to what hte Korean war was? Do you think it didnt exist? You don't know what the UN Resolution was for both Iraq wars were? Or what the Soviet Union was doing for 4 decades? Its like asking someone for proof that WW2 actually happened or that bananas exist. Also, alexandra, please cool it with your personal attack accusations. You've already shown that when confronted with information, your only recourse is to complain that people are attacking you when all they are doing is giving you factual information.

Also, as to not make yourself look like hypocrits, I believe sources will be necessary for every one of those bombings/military aid/etc. posted originally...

 

[Art]

Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?

In my personal opinion there are many reasons specific to individual interventions but probably the common thread which connects most if not all would be that interventions are resource driven. Thus the subtitle of the thread - The unacceptable face of capitalism.

In theory anybody can rise to the highest office in America but in reality the monetary cost of campaigning is so high that entry is restricted to a very few who end up beholden to the people who finance their campaign. This has lead to America becoming more like a corporation state than a nation state with the president in the role of CEO, his immediate staff, his board of directors and the legislature it's managers.
Like any corporation they want to maximise profits to enrich their shareholders (the American people) and themselves. To do this they need to draw on other countries resources which, to continue the business model, they want to obtain on as favorable terms as possible. Nothing wrong with this so far but here is where it becomes unacceptable. To obtain those favorable terms the USA does not hesitate to use it's military and economic might to undermine and even remove governments they have difficulty in agreeing terms with in order to replace them with governments more inclined to do as they are bid.
To the rest of the world this type of interference in other peoples' sovereignty is repugnant as I'm sure the American people would find it equally repugnant if another country was to do it to them.
How much of this the American people are fully aware of I have no idea which is why I started this thread; to find out.
Do they believe their government's propaganda such as the current publicly stated motivation for the war in Iraq "We want to remove a vicious dictator" , "We want to liberate the Iraqi people" and "We are under threat from WMD" or prior to that "We want to liberate the Kuwaiti people".
Do they know that the war is really about big business and obtaining the resources to fuel it but so long as they maintain their high standard of living do they just not care?

 

[alexandra]

1947.greek Civil war...Britain sent 40,000 troops to Greece and gave financial aid to the government, which became dependent on Great Britain's military to stay in power. On 21 February 1947 the British announced that they would cease providing aid to Greece and Turkey, and would not continue its support after March 31, 1947, the day of Greek elections. The UK was rebuilding after WW2, and simply needed the man power back home.
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania were channeling Russian weapons/support/aid into greece.
Our government {USA}could see no end to the communist push. Each gain,would serve as a stepping stone from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war{remember greece was blown to bits by the germans}, offered opportunities for further Soviet conquest.
The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence.

And this policy resulted in a bitter civil war because many Greeks actually supported communism:

The Greek Civil War was a war fought between 1942 and 1949 in Greece. On one side was the conservative part of the Greek society and the armed forces of the Greek government, supported at first by Britain and later by the United States. On the other side was the revolutionary part of the Greek society and the forces of the biggest wartime resistance organization (ELAS) against the German occupation, whose leadership was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece.

The Civil War left Greece in ruins and in even greater economic distress than it had been after the end of WWII and the end of the German occupation. The war divided the Greek people for the following four decades. Thousands of Greeks languished in prison for many years. Many thousands more went into exile in Communist countries, or emigrated to Australia Germany, USA and other countries. The polarisation and instability in the 1960s of Greek politics was a direct result from feelings and ideologies lingering from the Civil War.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Civil_War

 

[alexandra]

Are you kidding me? You need a reference as to what hte Korean war was? Do you think it didnt exist? You don't know what the UN Resolution was for both Iraq wars were? Or what the Soviet Union was doing for 4 decades? Its like asking someone for proof that WW2 actually happened or that bananas exist. Also, alexandra, please cool it with your personal attack accusations. You've already shown that when confronted with information, your only recourse is to complain that people are attacking you when all they are doing is giving you factual information.

Also, as to not make yourself look like hypocrits, I believe sources will be necessary for every one of those bombings/military aid/etc. posted originally...

Pengwuino, I am not accusing you of attacking me; I was actually asking that you not do personal attacks in general. But you should back up your arguments. What was the UN Resolution regarding Iraq? Didn't the US administration decide to go to war despite there being no supporting UN resolution? Where can I read what you mean by the UN resolution regarding the attack on Iraq?

 

[hypatia]

We need to remember after WW2, the cold war began with in months. The Soviet Union was installing communist governments throughout central and eastern Europe, China, Korea and VietNam. In countries that were already war torn.
The USA found the need to say enoughs, enough, when it came to so many dictatorships, funded by USSR.
In the first 6 items mentioned, the USSR is as much in fault as the USA.

 

[hypatia]

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm

 

[alexandra]

You don't know what the UN Resolution was for both Iraq wars were?
Also, as to not make yourself look like hypocrits, I believe sources will be necessary for every one of those bombings/military aid/etc. posted originally...

Here you go, Pengwuino - the UN Resolution about the Iraq war:

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explictly authorizing the war. [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm)
More information: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-UN-Security-Council-and-the-Iraq-war

So you see, I land up looking up the references myself if you don't do it. That isn't fair - you should locate your references when you post ideas so you can back up what you are saying with accurate information.

 

[Yonoz]

I will come out with what I am trying to point out here: it is my understanding that capitalism is by its nature destructive. Capitalism (and its representatives - the US administration, the UK admininstration, etc) causes wars, death, suffering, environmental degradation, social dislocation, etc. It deprives humanity of resources that could be better used for our further development.

I don't think you can attribute all those to any single aspect of social organisation. However, I fail to see how any other (implementable) form of markets would be any fairer or more efficient. IMHO the causes for all these are basic human traits that would manifest themselves in any society depending on its morality, regardless of its structure.

It is in the name of securing cheap resources (raw materials such as oil) and lucrative contracts that many wars are fought.

I can think of many other reasons for wars, but even in that case, I fail to see how capitalism is responsible for them - isn't it the actual demand for these resources? I am unsure of how long ago we should look for examples with regards to this argument, as the very nature of war has changed entirely over the last century. I cannot think of a relevant example of a war fought for securing a lucrative contract.

Very few people benefit from these wars (the very rich do) and many, many ordinary people suffer as a result of them - either by dying or by having their taxes spent on killing people or because of depleted uranium used in the new 'hotshot' weapons that great minds are totally wasting their potential developing.

It's hard determining who benefits from these wars - we cannot say "what would happen if". For example, there is much criticism on the free world's inaction in some conflicts such as Bosnia and the civil strife in Africa, whilst one can say almost certainly had the US intervened sooner and harsher to stop the genocide in Bosnia it would suffer an outbreak of hatred such as that we see today.

It makes me furious to think about the brain-power being expended on developing 'better' ways to kill human beings when these minds could be working on important things like solving our environmental problems.

That is not a problem of capitalism.

I have nothing against the ordinary people who live in any country whatsoever who do not have the power to make these devastating decisions, though I do wish they would question their social institutions and the prevalent ideology critically so we can get over this disgusting phase of social (dis)organisation that depends on killing and general mayhem and get on with doing worthwhile things.

I feel it is these ordinary people that are at fault. IMHO I am accountable for any wrongdoing by the social groups that I am a part of, and therefor I must be active in that sense.
It is the greed, aspirations and lack of concern of common people that make possible the ills of modern society. Most of us cannot see past our own little world, and those who can would rather point fingers than take positive action. Worse yet, we do not educate our succesors to do any better. I don't think capitalism can be blamed for all this, though I do think we need to tweak our social organisation to something similar to the welfare state.
I grew up in a Kibbutz, a type of socialist farm. These were once very common and successful in Israel. Virtually all of them collapsed, due to the human nature of their inhabitants. The first generation was composed of highly idealistic individuals, but the following generations grew just like ordinary people everywhere, and the ideals became cliches. IMO capitalism takes into account the very matter that is communism's and socialism's achilles heel - human nature - and uses it to create progress. Had we all been born and raised to be loving to our fellow (wo)men, and blessed with foresight and understanding of the power of the collective, maybe then socialism would work. But we are mostly egocentric and short-sighted, fearful and uncaring of others. That is our nature, and we must organise our societal structures accordingly.

 

[alexandra]

We need to remember after WW2, the cold war began with in months. The Soviet Union was installing communist governments throughout central and eastern Europe, China, Korea and VietNam. In countries that were already war torn.
The USA found the need to say enoughs, enough, when it came to so many dictatorships, funded by USSR.
In the first 6 items mentioned, the USSR is as much in fault as the USA.

Regarding Greece, however, Stalin was actually against the Greek Communist Party and 'sold out' the Greek communists (yet another atrocity of many he was guilty of - Stalin was no communist):

The United States saw the end of the Greek Civil War, as a victory in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The paradox was that the Soviets never actively supported the Communist Party's efforts to seize power in Greece, and at the crucial moment at the end of 1944, when ELAS controlled most of the country, intervened decisively to restrain KKE, in the interests of the Soviet Union's larger strategy. KKE's major supporter and supplier had always been Tito, and it was the rift between Tito and the KKE which marked the real demise of the party's efforts to assert power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Civil_War#The_End_of_the_War:_1949

 

[Pengwuino]

So you see, I land up looking up the references myself if you don't do it. That isn't fair - you should locate your references when you post ideas so you can back up what you are saying with accurate information.

Damn games took up my time... but to be fair, ill throw in my contribution. What a waste though... i see you asking for proof then i find it then scroll down to post to see that you already did it for me... its entrapment i tells ya! lol jk... but yes, here

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Theres the resolution they broke, which of course, deserves some sort of punishment which the US handed out. Good thing hte US was intervening because the UN wouldn't have done anything with 1441.

Now please, to the OP, sources on that big ol list?

 

[alexandra]

I don't think you can attribute all those to any single aspect of social organisation.

When I say 'capitalism' I mean all the institutions in totality that contribute to its functioning - the economy, the political system, the mass media, the education system - all these work together to make up a capitalist society, so I'm not attributing wars to a simple single thing.

However, I fail to see how any other (implementable) form of markets would be any fairer or more efficient.

A system not based on private profit would be fairer - if the 'social wage' were distributed equally, surely that would be fairer?

IMHO the causes for all these are basic human traits that would manifest themselves in any society depending on its morality, regardless of its structure.

I believe that there is no 'basic' human nature. I believe that the sort of environment one grows up in and gets socialised into has a significant effect on the prevailing 'basic human traits'.
Here is my basic argument:

"Human Nature" is often used as a counter argument to Marxism. However, it is not that Marxists entirely reject the concept of human nature, rather they contend that many of the behaviours exhibited by humans in Western capitalist societies - particularly excessive self-interest, and lack of social responsibility - are by no means fixed or innate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

And here's more evidence that individualism and collectivism are influenced by the society one grows up in:

1. Socialization. While all people manifest individualist and collectivist characteristics in varying degrees, the extent to which they exhibit one set of traits more than another usually depends upon their socialization. All children begin their lives in a collectivist context, dependent on their parents and any other adults who rear them. In individualist societies, however, children often are encouraged to identify personal preferences and to pursue personal goals and achievements. As a consequence, they begin to establish separate identities from their parents and other caregivers. With the passage of time, such children's pursuit of personal ends can create conflicts between their goals and the norms of their caregivers. In an individualist society, the pursuit of personal goals that conflict with family norms may be acceptable, even expected. Children's successful cultivation of separate identities leads to a degree of detachment from their families by the time they are adults. Detachment from families often establishes a similar pattern of detachment from other ingroups, such as employers, religious groups and civic organizations.(3) In contrast, when children of collectivist societies exhibit individualist tendencies, those tendencies frequently are discouraged. Compliance with group expectations and norms is praised. As a consequence, many children of collectivist societies learn to conform and to identify closely with their ingroups. As adults, they have strongly interdependent relationships with their families and other ingroups.(4) http://www.attorney-mediators.org/wright.html

I can think of many other reasons for wars, but even in that case, I fail to see how capitalism is responsible for them - isn't it the actual demand for these resources? I am unsure of how long ago we should look for examples with regards to this argument, as the very nature of war has changed entirely over the last century. I cannot think of a relevant example of a war fought for securing a lucrative contract.

Phew, Yonoz - there is plenty of current evidence of wars being fought to secure lucrative contracts! Here's some current evidence:

Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War

Cheney's Former Company Profits from Supporting Troops
by Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch
March 20th, 2003

As the first bombs rain down on Baghdad, CorpWatch has learned that thousands of employees of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, are working alongside US troops in Kuwait and Turkey under a package deal worth close to a billion dollars. According to US Army sources, they are building tent cities and providing logistical support for the war in Iraq in addition to other hot spots in the "war on terrorism."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008

It's hard determining who benefits from these wars - we cannot say "what would happen if". For example, there is much criticism on the free world's inaction in some conflicts such as Bosnia and the civil strife in Africa, whilst one can say almost certainly had the US intervened sooner and harsher to stop the genocide in Bosnia it would suffer an outbreak of hatred such as that we see today. That is not a problem of capitalism.

All you have to do to determine who benefits from these wars is to ask the question seriously and then investigate who makes money out of them (as the extract I cited above demonstrates). I would argue that it is a problem of capitalism, because capitalism is an economic system based on competition, greed and individualism ("look after number one").

I feel it is these ordinary people that are at fault. IMHO I am accountable for any wrongdoing by the social groups that I am a part of, and therefor I must be active in that sense.

In a sense, I do agree with what you write here because if humans were just completely puppets we could never hope to effect change or to progress. On the other hand, there are very, very powerful forces preventing people from questioning their world and it is therefore difficult for people to see what's really going on. So ordinary people are not to blame for the decisions and deeds of the powerful, but as I said previously it would be nice if people would question what they were told instead of just accepting it and 'going with the flow'.

It is the greed, aspirations and lack of concern of common people that make possible the ills of modern society. Most of us cannot see past our own little world, and those who can would rather point fingers than take positive action. Worse yet, we do not educate our succesors to do any better.

But I believe that people are socialised to be greedy rather than being born that way (as posted above). Regarding taking action: yes, it is important to do this - but it can only be done collectively, by the bulk of the people. To take action as an individual is both futile and can be counterproductive (eg. individual acts of terror fall into this category - the individuals may think they're doing something for 'the greater good', but in actual fact they aren't achieving anything and very frequently are making matters worse). It is important that people only take action once they understand the situation they are in, IMO.

Worse yet, we do not educate our succesors to do any better. I don't think capitalism can be blamed for all this, though I do think we need to tweak our social organisation to something similar to the welfare state.

My understanding of capitalism is different to yours, so I will have to disagree with you about that bit. However, I agree with the point you make about educating others - or at least getting them to think about things more deeply.

I grew up in a Kibbutz, a type of socialist farm. These were once very common and successful in Israel. Virtually all of them collapsed, due to the human nature of their inhabitants. The first generation was composed of highly idealistic individuals, but the following generations grew just like ordinary people everywhere, and the ideals became cliches. IMO capitalism takes into account the very matter that is communism's and socialism's achilles heel - human nature - and uses it to create progress. Had we all been born and raised to be loving to our fellow (wo)men, and blessed with foresight and understanding of the power of the collective, maybe then socialism would work. But we are mostly egocentric and short-sighted, fearful and uncaring of others. That is our nature, and we must organise our societal structures accordingly.

Interesting that you grew up in a Kibbutz, Yonoz. I found the idea of that experiment quite intriguing initially, but perhaps it did not work because as a whole this was a socialist 'experiment' in a capitalist society? I mean, Israel wasn't socialist and I imagine that would have had something to do with how the generations following the first one would have reacted? I don't know about this though, I'm just 'thinking aloud'.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, is this a serious question? Tell me, why Iraq? And please, do NOT say 'WMD' or '9/11'. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. So ok, why Iraq?

Because it is an easy target.
Forgive me, but I must mention 9/11, though not in the sense you meant.
Following 9/11, the US government had undergone a change of mind. It was realized that the US could not be absolutely protected in the same way it was before 9/11. Security cannot be guaranteed by intelligence and covert operations alone. Because of its dominance and the increasing hatred towards it, the US has to take a more proactive approach to its security. It needs to take the fight outside.
The "Axis of Evil" is not a new concept - there are countries that actively support terror. They do not do it bluntly, so that you and I will not one day watch CNN and say "damn, Iran is attempting to gain control in the occupied territories by funding terror against Israel. I'm going to act against that. I'm going to vote for someone who will try to stop them". They also keep some leverage to further dissuade other countries from attacking them directly. This can be in the form of a potential wave of terrorism by their controlled cells or military technology that they can allow to fall into the wrong hands. The US is now playing the same game - Iraq is fair game in that sense. First, Bush Sr.'s decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power during the First Gulf War is a sign of weakness. By removing him, the US signalled it will eventually deal with any entity that continualy challenges it etc. In chauvenist terms, the US showed it's got balls. The father-son thing obviously plays a role but who can differentiate between strategy and vandetta in this case?
Secondly, liberating Iraq was perceived as easier to accomplish than attacking one of the other countries directly. That could well have been a mistake, but one cannot determine these things with absolute certainty.
The effectiveness of the Iraqi conflict can be argued. Since there is no shortage of criticism I will draw two positive examples: 1) Kadafi's sudden change of heart and newfound love for the west - he may have been only a little shaken by his chum's downfall, but it is also not inconceivable that he was approached by a third party or even US emissaries prior to that sudden u-turn; 2) Iran's cautious handling of its nuclear weapons program - in that sense, the unexpected scope of continued fighting in Iraq has given it some new leverage, but it is certainly "feeling the heat" and choosing its moves carefully.

 

[Burnsys]

1953 CIA Coup in Iran..

America’s 1953 intervention in Iran to topple Premier Mohammed Mossadegh was one of the US’s first successful attempts to subvert a radical nationalist government. Mossadegh came to power in 1951 as leader of the National Front, and was appointed by the Shah under heavy pressure from the Iranian parliament (the MajIls). Mossadegh’s nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) earned at first the enmity of the British, and then the United States, culminating in the new Eisenhower Administration’s decision to undertake covert action in support of a military coup. CIA Chief Allen Dulles and top Mideast operative Kermit Roosevelt engineered the fall of Mossadegh’s government in August, 1953.[1]
The British oil business fared well. The AIOC made £170 million in profits in 1950 alone. (90)

The Coup
'Our policy', a British official explained, 'was to get rid of Mossadeq as soon as possible'. (30) Thus the Labour government initiated the plan to organise the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister. In June 1951, shortly after Musaddiq's oil nationalisation decree

After the failure of the oil negotiations the main British negotiator advised the Shah that the 'only solution' was 'a strong government under martial law and the bad boys in prison for two years or so'. (33) The Ambassador in Tehran concurred, noting that 'if only the Shah can be induced to take a strong line there is a good chance that Musaddiq may be got rid of'. 'Any new government that is worth its salt' would then 'have to take drastic action against individual extremists'. (34)

[...]'Such a dictator', the Foreign Office continued, expressing the Ambassador's preference, 'would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms'. (39)

When the coup scenario finally began, huge demonstrations proceeded in the streets of Tehran, funded by CIA and MI6 money, $1 million dollars of which was in a safe in the US embassy (57) and £1.5 million which had been delivered by Britain to its agents in Iran, according to the MI6 officer responsible for delivering it. (58)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59)

The head of the CIA operation also sent envoys to the commanders of some provincial armies, encouraging them to move on to Tehran. (62) In the fighting in the capital, 300 people were killed before Musaddiq's supporters were defeated by the Shah's forces. AUS general later testified that 'the guns they had in their hands, the trucks they rode in, the armoured cars that they drove through the streets, and the radio communications that permitted their control, were all furnished through the [US] military defence assistance program'. (63)

After the coup, the United States helped the Shah consolidate his power, and the CIA and Defense Department were deeply involved in Iranian political affairs. The CIA assisted in the creation of SAVAK (the National Security and Intelligence Organisation, Iran’s secret police) in 1957, and two recent US ambassadors to Iran, Richard Helms and William Sullivan, are noted for their organisational and

Operational links to the CIA. During the current crisis, Ambassador Sullivan repeatedly met with the Shah and with Iran’s military ruler, General Azhari, to discuss the government’s strategy for suppressing the opposition

Arms Sales

Iran under the Shah was America’s number one arms customer, accounting for $18.1 billion or 25 per cent of the $71 billion in military orders placed by foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program between FY 1950 and FY 1977. Recent sales included 141 Northrop F-SE jet fighters, 160 Hughes TOW missiles [...] Iranian military purchases rose from $519 million in FY 1972 to a record high for any country of $5.8 billion in FY 1977

Building Iran’s military-industrial complex

Not only did the Shah order vast quantities of America’s most advanced weapons, he was also acquiring the capability to produce them in Iran. Under a multibillion-dollar industrialisation programme, the Shah commissioned US arms firms to build entire weapons factories from scratch in Iran. Thus Bell Helicopter (a division of Textron, Inc.) was building a factory to produce Model-214 helicopters in Isfahan, and Hughes was building a missile plant in Shiraz. Northrop was also a joint partner in Iran Aircraft Industries, inc., which maintained many of the US military aircraft sold to Iran and was expected to produce aircraft components and eventually complete planes. These efforts represented a large share of US industrial involvement in Iran, and were a centrepiece of the Shah’s efforts to develop modern, high-technology industries

An agreement was signed the year following the coup establishing a new oil consortium in which Britain and the US both had a 40% interest, and which controlled the production, pricing and export of Iranian oil. Britain's share was thus reduced from the complete control it had prior to Musaddiq but was nevertheless more than the latter's nationalisation plan had envisaged. The US, meanwhile, had gained a significant stake in Iranian oil and political influence in the country, a change of fortune which symbolised the relative power of the partners in the special relationship.

Anti Americanism
The United States, having sold sophisticated arms in large quantities to Iran, has assumed a growing and significant "commitment" in terms of supporting that equipment — an unstated but nevertheless real obligation to train Iranians and to provide logistical support for the lifetime of the equipment.’ The result was that the United States was viewed by both the Shah and the opposition forces as being directly involved in Iranian military operations — with all the political consequences such a role entailed. In the words of the 1976 Senate study, ‘Anti-Americanism could become a serious problem in Iran ... if there were to be a change in government in Iran.’

----------------------------------------------

Now if any has another "History" that we seem to ignore. please explain me why the 1953 iran coup was done...
For what i know, it was done to avoid nationalization of iranian oil which would cause the british to stop profiting from their oil, and in arms sell for us corporations...
And this particular case show what alexandra says... that capitalism derive in wars for profits and natural resources... between others

Sources:
1 R. Barnet, Intervention and Revolution (1968), pp 265-8.
2 US Department of Defense, Foreign Military Safes and Military Assistance Facts (1978).
3 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 1977; International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Military Balance 1978-79.
4 M, Klare, ‘America White Collar Mercenaries’, Inquiry (16 October 1978)
30. Lapping p. 266
33. Cited in Azimi p. 262
34. F. Shepherd to W. Strang, 11 September 1951, PRO, FO371/91463
39. Foreign Office memorandum, 'Sir F. Shepherd's analysis of the Persian situation', 28 January 1952, PRO, FO 371/98684
57. William Blum, The CIA: a forgotten history, (Zed Press, London 1986), p. 72; Rubin p. 82
58. Lapping p. 268
59. Ibid p. 274
90. W. Roger Louis, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1947-1951: Arab nationalism, the United States and postwar imperialism, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1984), p. 682.

 

[Burnsys]

Secondly, liberating Iraq was perceived as easier to accomplish than attacking one of the other countries directly. That could well have been a mistake, but one cannot determine these things with absolute certainty.

If you call this war in irak "Liberating irak"
We should say that us support and Rumsfeld military aid to saddam in the 80 was "enslaving irak" ?

 

[fourier jr]

Because it is an easy target.
Forgive me, but I must mention 9/11, though not in the sense you meant.
Following 9/11, the US government had undergone a change of mind. It was realized that the US could not be absolutely protected in the same way it was before 9/11. Security cannot be guaranteed by intelligence and covert operations alone. Because of its dominance and the increasing hatred towards it, the US has to take a more proactive approach to its security. It needs to take the fight outside.
The "Axis of Evil" is not a new concept - there are countries that actively support terror. They do not do it bluntly, so that you and I will not one day watch CNN and say "damn, Iran is attempting to gain control in the occupied territories by funding terror against Israel. I'm going to act against that. I'm going to vote for someone who will try to stop them". They also keep some leverage to further dissuade other countries from attacking them directly. This can be in the form of a potential wave of terrorism by their controlled cells or military technology that they can allow to fall into the wrong hands. The US is now playing the same game - Iraq is fair game in that sense. First, Bush Sr.'s decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power during the First Gulf War is a sign of weakness. By removing him, the US signalled it will eventually deal with any entity that continualy challenges it etc. In chauvenist terms, the US showed it's got balls. The father-son thing obviously plays a role but who can differentiate between strategy and vandetta in this case?
Secondly, liberating Iraq was perceived as easier to accomplish than attacking one of the other countries directly. That could well have been a mistake, but one cannot determine these things with absolute certainty.
The effectiveness of the Iraqi conflict can be argued. Since there is no shortage of criticism I will draw two positive examples: 1) Kadafi's sudden change of heart and newfound love for the west - he may have been only a little shaken by his chum's downfall, but it is also not inconceivable that he was approached by a third party or even US emissaries prior to that sudden u-turn; 2) Iran's cautious handling of its nuclear weapons program - in that sense, the unexpected scope of continued fighting in Iraq has given it some new leverage, but it is certainly "feeling the heat" and choosing its moves carefully.

this is all simply wrong. yousef ibrahim, a senior fellow member of the council on foreign relations & middle-east correspondent at the new york times for 30 years wrote that there are 2 reasons for the war:
-- the domestic political problems, which is why iraq had to be attacked asap rather than in a year or something
-- oil; the state dept wrote in 1945 that middle east oil is "a stupendous source of strategic power, one the greatest material prizes in world history"

here are other reasons:

Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East.

Idealism: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Oil: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down.

Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm