News Does the US stand for democracy in the world?

[Burnsys]

Does the US stand for democracy in the world?

I started this thread to finaly end with the myth that the US do their best to spread democracy and freedom. (On of the last justifications for the war in irak).

So my point is: The United States in his history has actively supported a lot of dictatorship. And at the same time the CIA has violent overtrowed a lot of democracys and then placed violent and cruel dictatorships, mainly becouse of economic interests.. so here is my list:

Edit by Moonbear: sorry, it's someone else's list. http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm Plagiarism is not permitted here.
copyright violation

 

[phcatlantis]

I think you've confused "democracy" with "egalitarianism, pacifism, and moral relativism and at the expense of liberty and at the risk of advancing dehumanizing collectivism."

 

[russ_watters]

I started this thread to finaly end with the myth that the US do their best to spread democracy and freedom. (On of the last justifications for the war in irak).

So my point is: The United States in his history has actively supported a lot of dictatorship. And at the same time the CIA has violent overtrowed a lot of democracys and then placed violent and cruel dictatorships, mainly becouse of economic interests.

"Do their best?" I've never heard anyone claim such a thing. So the premise here is a strawman, right from the get-go.

The US, like all countries, acts primarily in its own self-interest. But, this fact cannot be construed to mean that support of democracy never factors into decisions, because it most certainly does - and decisions can (and of course often do) have more than one reason behind them.

 

[Burnsys]

"Do their best?" I've never heard anyone claim such a thing. So the premise here is a strawman, right from the get-go.
The US, like all countries, acts primarily in its own self-interest. But, this fact cannot be construed to mean that support of democracy never factors into decisions, because it most certainly does - and decisions can (and of course often do) have more than one reason behind them.

Cameon russ, you know exactly what i am talking about... I am tied of heard thigs such:
"They want to kill us becouse we stand for democracy and freedom"
"irak will be a beacon of democracy in the midle east"
"We want to spread democracy"
"We are in irak becouse we want to Free their people from a dictator"
ETC, ETC.

When you talk about countrys i talk about people.. Those who are in charge of the goverment, the inteligence comunity and in charge of big corporations.
When you say: "The US, like all countries, acts primarily in its own self-interest. " In reality the people who runs the US, or "All countrys" acts on self interest. not in the interest of their countrys.

1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. .

1953 Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil

1973 Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile

ETC ETC

 

[SOS2008]

Cameon russ, you know exactly what i am talking about... I am tied of heard thigs such:
"They want to kill us becouse we stand for democracy and freedom"
"irak will be a beacon of democracy in the midle east"
"We want to spread democracy"
"We are in irak becouse we want to Free their people from a dictator"
ETC, ETC.
When you talk about countrys i talk about people.. Those who are in charge of the goverment, the inteligence comunity and in charge of big corporations.
When you say: "The US, like all countries, acts primarily in its own self-interest. " In reality the people who runs the US, or "All countrys" acts on self interest. not in the interest of their countrys.
1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. .
1953 Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil
1973 Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile
ETC ETC

Burnsys, I can't reply fully at this time, but plan to when I am able (probably after the holidays). I wanted to start a thread on the roots of terrorism and why other counters dislike the U.S., which you address in part in this thread. Because I agree many reasons Americans are told/and believe are not supported with evidence.

 

[Anttech]

The problem with the US is it has no where near enough experience in world politics, and way too much self-belief that it is the good guy. And uses very heavy handed approaches to most things, when a softly softly approach would yeild better results.

Its the same with World Politics. Time after Time the rest of the world sees America do as it pleases, ignoring all past treaties or even advice. People also see the massive depths of Hypocracy especially in the current US administration actions, and words.

 

[russ_watters]

Cameon russ, you know exactly what i am talking about...

I do - I'm just saying you are wrong because you are arguing a strawman. I've heard variations of all the quotes below - just not the one you posted in the OP.

I am tied of heard thigs such:
"They want to kill us becouse we stand for democracy and freedom"

That is true (just read Bin Laden's statements!), but that has nothing to do with the statement you are arguing in your OP.

"irak will be a beacon of democracy in the midle east"

That's a prediction and a goal, but that also isn't the same as what you are saying in the OP.

"We want to spread democracy"

That is true, and it is not the same as what you are saying in the OP.

"We are in irak becouse we want to Free their people from a dictator"

That is true (it is one of many reasons), and that is not the same as what you said in the OP.

So clearly, as none of those are equivalent to what you claimed in the OP, your statement in the OP is a strawman.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with the US is it has no where near enough experience in world politics...

What do you mean by experience? Are you talking about years in existence? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[Burnsys]

"They want to kill us becouse we stand for democracy and freedom"

That is true (just read Bin Laden's statements!), but that has nothing to do with the statement you are arguing in your OP.

Please link and quote. i found this.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
...
That day I became convinced that iniquity and the premeditated murder of innocent children and women is an established American principle, and that terror is [the real meaning of] 'freedom' and 'democracy,' while they call the resistance 'terrorism' and 'reaction.'

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

"We want to spread democracy"

That is true, and it is not the same as what you are saying in the OP

Have you even read the list of all the democracys overtrown by US goverment, and dictator placed? let me do the count.

I counted 15 democratic goverments overtrown by CIA coups and
21 Dictatorships placed, suported and helped by the CIA..
765884 People Killed.

Just in the list i posted..
Again russ, are you sure the US want to Spread Democracy ?
Please, show me sources, historical facts, something. Remember that you also has to prove your statemets.

We are in irak becouse we want to Free their people from a dictator"

That is true (it is one of many reasons), and that is not the same as what you said in the OP.

Why did the us supported dictator saddam housen in the 80' then?

The US, like all countries, acts primarily in its own self-interest.

Ok. the US kill people, and support dictators around the world for self interest.
And about all countries... mmm. how much? The soviet union,, Nazi germany, and US in that magnitud.

But, this fact cannot be construed to mean that support of democracy never factors into decisions, because it most certainly does

Proof?

So clearly, as none of those are equivalent to what you claimed in the OP, your statement in the OP is a strawman.

Yes russ, so The US has never overtrown any democracy, has never supported any dictator, and has never killed anyone. Keep lying to yourself

 

[DaveC426913]

Burnsys, you're missing Russ' point.

Your VERY FIRST premise ("the myth that the US do their best to spread democracy and freedom") needs to be accepted before there is any point in expressing ANY of the rest of your argument.

As Russ points out, NO ONE is saying that. YOU are putting those words in someone else's mouth, and THEN shooting them down, as if someone else spoke them to you.


This thread could have been way, WAY shorter, thus:

Burnsys: "The US is NOT doing their "best" to spread democracy and freedom."
Everyone: "The whole informed world agrees."
Burnsys: "Oh. Well then. There you go."




All those "they hate us because we stand for love and freedom" arguments do not wash with any informed citizen. They're aimed at the Hee-Haw crowd (who arne't going to read your critique anyway).

 

[Futobingoro]

The US does not stifle democracy as Burnsys says it does.

If nobody were able to legally hate the US, I would be concerned about the future of democracy in the world.

If nobody were permitted to burn US flags, I would have great doubts about the future of freedom in the world.

If nobody had the privilege to organize demonstrations against the US, I would question the future of freedom in the world.

A lack of protest does not denote an ideal society. Countries with authoritarian regimes experience very few protests, yet such a vacuum is disturbing. Dead men do not protest.

An abundance of protest does denote an ideal society. The protester's presence authenticates his vigor.

To live in a nation without protesters is to be satisfied with a muted voice.

To live in a nation with protesters is to have a voice with which to be satisfied.

I would much rather live in a nation where protests are plain and easy to see than live in a nation where protests are "not seen."

Protest... Count your blessings... Learn... Live

 

[coffee na lang dear]

To live in a nation without protesters is to be satisfied with a muted voice.
To live in a nation with protesters is to have a voice with which to be satisfied.

Very true

Without this how can it be called 'democracy' then?

nice one

 

[Pengwuino]

Burnsys, you might want to cite the webpage you copy and pasted that list off, I'm sure that's forum rules.

 

[Anttech]

What do you mean by experience? Are you talking about years in existence? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

No I mean experience. You have only been engaged in "world" politics since WW1 more or less. And it shows...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No I mean experience. You have only been engaged in "world" politics since WW1 more or less. And it shows...

I think there might be a bit of a problem with the idea that any particular country can be better or worse at "world politics" due to the collective experience of it's generations of politicians, especially when you consider the nature of information and learning in the modern world.

 

[russ_watters]

Please link and quote. i found this.

Bin Laden likes to muddy the water, but demands number 1, 2 in Bin Laden's http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html" call for the US to give up our government and way of life. That statement was probably his clearest statement of intent/demands.

Have you even read the list of all the democracys overtrown by US goverment, and dictator placed? let me do the count.

Again, that isn't the issue here. If your desire was just to flame America for those, you should have titled the thread "see how terrible the US is?".

You posted a statement you say you have seen/heard people say, but it isn't. It is a strawman and evading your own point won't make me let it go.

Again russ, are you sure the US want to Spread Democracy ?
Please, show me sources, historical facts, something. Remember that you also has to prove your statemets.

Certainly: the US set up 2 extrordinarily successful democracies at the end of WWII.

Proof? [that democracy factors into these decisions]

Read Bush's first speech on why he was going to overthrow Saddam (I've linked it half a dozen times - I'm sure you've seen it). It's in there.

Yes russ, so The US has never overtrown any democracy, has never supported any dictator, and has never killed anyone. Keep lying to yourself

I didn't say that, Burnsys, you did. You are putting words in my (and a lot of other peoples') mouth in order to argue your strawman.

 

[russ_watters]

No I mean experience. You have only been engaged in "world" politics since WW1 more or less. And it shows...

How does a country retain experience through generations and does the fact that most of the rest of the countries in the world didn't exist until after WWI factor into this at all? Ie, Do countries like Russia, China, Japan, and Germany retain their experience despite radical changes in government?

That assertion of yours doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[BobG]

How does a country retain experience through generations and does the fact that most of the rest of the countries in the world didn't exist until after WWI factor into this at all? Ie, Do countries like Russia, China, Japan, and Germany retain their experience despite radical changes in government?
That assertion of yours doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Actually, his comments do make sense.

A country retains its experience through its educational system and its cultural history - the history classes it teaches and the subtle viewpoints that always wind up embedded in any history book (it's a virtually inescapable 'flaw' no matter how hard an author might try to present an objective history).

The change in government doesn't eradicate a people's cultural history. Most American history classes wouldn't be complete without covering the Magna Carta, something that occurred in a completely different country than the US.

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

 

[SOS2008]

All those "they hate us because we stand for love and freedom" arguments do not wash with any informed citizen. They're aimed at the Hee-Haw crowd (who arne't going to read your critique anyway).

Agreed.

Nor is it envy of our wealth. The problem is when certain representatives of our country are hypocritical about freedom (associated with democracy), and use our wealth (and military power) in the wrong way, naturally there will be resentment from abroad. Burnsys’ list of hypocrisies is legitimate in this regard.

As for the Hee-Haw crowd, have you seen recent stats on literacy in the U.S.?

Burnsys, you might want to cite the webpage you copy and pasted that list off, I'm sure that's forum rules.

Or better yet, just don’t provide sources at all and then there is no worry about links, right?

I think there might be a bit of a problem with the idea that any particular country can be better or worse at "world politics" due to the collective experience of it's generations of politicians, especially when you consider the nature of information and learning in the modern world.

I agree to some extent, particularly about the rapid changes related to modern times.

However, I’ve also stated more than once that if you look at American history, a good chunk was spent practicing isolationism. Then there is the America-centric mentality that prevails in the U.S., which we see for example by poor geography scores. Americans as a whole (and often it is apparent in our leaders as well--confusing Sweden with Switzerland) have the least amount of understanding and knowledge of other country's history, culture, language, etc.

IN GENERAL (not in reply to anyone specifically): I’ve also mentioned the “Power of Pride” to quote another cheesy (but right-wing) bumper sticker. Yes, throughout America’s history (short as it is), for the most part America has done well in the world (particularly in our earlier history when we finally entered the war against Hitler) on the basis of freedom and liberty that we have enjoyed here at home. But it seems Americans can’t take criticism very well (Power of Pride) so reflection on ways to do even better is difficult to achieve. I feel very blessed to live in the U.S., and have immense admiration for what the founding fathers created. But I wish other Americans would ‘grow up’ and get over themselves so we can work toward even greater achievements.

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, you might want to cite the webpage you copy and pasted that list off, I'm sure that's forum rules.

No, you could go and google each item of the list and find for your own that they are very real and well documented. i did that myself.

 

[Burnsys]

Bin Laden likes to muddy the water, but demands number 1, 2 in Bin Laden's http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html" call for the US to give up our government and way of life. That statement was probably his clearest statement of intent/demands.

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits (On Self Interest)

And the most important one:

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others

a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!

Again, that isn't the issue here. If your desire was just to flame America for those, you should have titled the thread "see how terrible the US is?".
You posted a statement you say you have seen/heard people say, but it isn't. It is a strawman and evading your own point won't make me let it go.

you are right i think i should have title the thread "see how terrible the US is?".

Certainly: the US set up 2 extrordinarily successful democracies at the end of WWII.

Against 21 dictatorships and 15 democracys overtrown...
So the US doesn't want to Spread Democracy. FACT

Read Bush's first speech on why he was going to overthrow Saddam (I've linked it half a dozen times - I'm sure you've seen it). It's in there.

Bush likes to muddy the water... This is exactly the point... US government says one thing but they do the opposite..

I didn't say that, Burnsys, you did. You are putting words in my mouth

Sorry

 

[Skyhunter]

The US stands for capitalist democracies. You just don't hear that qualifier when politicians are espousing US values.

If the democratically elected government is corporate friendly it is supported, otherwise it is opposed.

 

[Pengwuino]

No, you could go and google each item of the list and find for your own that they are very real and well documented. i did that myself.

You copied and pasted word-for-word without proper citation and passed it off as your own ideas.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)However, I’ve also stated more than once

The one instance I noticed I can let slide --- twice, this post, I'll have to disagree.

that if you look at American history, a good chunk was spent practicing isolationism. (snip)

Let's see:

1) Barbary war;
2) Monroe Doctrine;
3) couple wrangles with the French over "freedom of seas;"
4) anti-slavery patrols with Royal Navy for most of first half of 19th century;
5) less than passive involvement with Bolivar;
6) Perry (? whoever) opening Japan in mid-19th;
7) assorted machinations with France and Spain re. New Orleans;
8) a whaling fleet that went anywhere in the world without fear (courtesy of the Royal Navy);
9) a northern faction during the ACW that was able to dictate a non-involvement policy to European powers;
10) Mexican-American War;
11) Sandwich Islands "grab;"
12) establishment of Liberia in Africa;
13) Louisiana Purchase;
14) Seward's Folly;
15) odd "Cod Wars;"
16) assorted manipulations of the fur trade with Russia;
17) and who knows what all other "isolationist" antics.

Politicians may have talked "isolationism," and such talk may have been preserved for posterity in the history books out of deference to GW, but no such policy was ever pursued.​

 

[SOS2008]

The one instance I noticed I can let slide --- twice, this post, I'll have to disagree.
Let's see:

1) Barbary war;
2) Monroe Doctrine;
3) couple wrangles with the French over "freedom of seas;"
4) anti-slavery patrols with Royal Navy for most of first half of 19th century;
5) less than passive involvement with Bolivar;
6) Perry (? whoever) opening Japan in mid-19th;
7) assorted machinations with France and Spain re. New Orleans;
8) a whaling fleet that went anywhere in the world without fear (courtesy of the Royal Navy);
9) a northern faction during the ACW that was able to dictate a non-involvement policy to European powers;
10) Mexican-American War;
11) Sandwich Islands "grab;"
12) establishment of Liberia in Africa;
13) Louisiana Purchase;
14) Seward's Folly;
15) odd "Cod Wars;"
16) assorted manipulations of the fur trade with Russia;
17) and who knows what all other "isolationist" antics.
Politicians may have talked "isolationism," and such talk may have been preserved for posterity in the history books out of deference to GW, but no such policy was ever pursued.​

From a U.S. history site:

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars.

…The isolationist perspective dates to colonial days. The colonies were populated by many people who had fled from Europe, where there was religious persecution, economic privation and war. Their new homeland was looked upon as a place to make things better than the old ways. The sheer distance and rigors of the voyage from Europe tended to accentuate the remoteness of the New World from the Old. The roots of isolationism were well established years before independence, notwithstanding the alliance with France during the War for Independence.

…The United States remained politically isolated all through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, an unusual feat in western history. Historians have attributed the fact to a geographical position at once separate and far removed from Europe.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html​

 

[russ_watters]

A country retains its experience through its educational system and its cultural history - the history classes it teaches and the subtle viewpoints that always wind up embedded in any history book (it's a virtually inescapable 'flaw' no matter how hard an author might try to present an objective history).

That's true, but I wonder what Germany has retained about Naziism...?

The change in government doesn't eradicate a people's cultural history. Most American history classes wouldn't be complete without covering the Magna Carta, something that occurred in a completely different country than the US.

Again, true, but the Magna Carta wasn't an American document - so didn't you just agree with Ape?

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

Agreed.

RE: Isolationism - Isolationism may have been a fallacy, but it was a very real fallacy. I like to call it "belligerent isolationism". Oxymoron? Maybe, but the fact that it was important enough to put in writing in the Monroe Doctrine and the fact that even days before Pearl Harbor it prevented us from sending troops to Europe (even while sending them weapons) means that it was, at the very least, on our minds.

Today, isolationism is mostly just an ideology of liberals, but still, it's something they believe in very strongly. I would argue that it isn't practical or realistic - in fact, Clinton realized it after he became President - but that's probably best discussed in another thread...

 

[russ_watters]

you are right i think i should have title the thread "see how terrible the US is?".

At least then you wouldn't be arguing against your own post...

Against 21 dictatorships and 15 democracys overtrown...
So the US doesn't want to Spread Democracy. FACT

Sorry, that doesn't follow. You are once again trying to apply a binary condition where clearly one does not exist. Even in that quote right there you didn't argue that the US is less interested in spreading democracy than it's own self-interest, you said the US doesn't want to spread democracy - a "fact" that is clearly wrong as you acknowledged in the previous sentence that the US does occasionally act on the desire to spread democracy.

But if you'd like to keep score to weigh "more" or "less", I'd suggest a different way: with the lives of American soldiers. More American soldiers have died to defend/spread democracy than for all other reasons combined. Just this century, that's WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War - defending freedom/democracy was by far the primary reason we fought those wars and something like 300,000 Americans died in them.

Bush likes to muddy the water... This is exactly the point... US government says one thing but they do the opposite..

If you are just going to argue that everyone is just always lying about their motives what's the point? You can't prove that and you'll never believe anyone else anyway!

 

[russ_watters]

Hee-Haw crowd aside , this is too good to pass up:

As for the Hee-Haw crowd, have you seen recent stats on literacy in the U.S.?

Did you read and understand what those literacy stats were saying? They were about English literacy - and it's down because of the number of people for whom English is a second language.

As with most other developed countries, the native-born literacy rate (ie, English for people for whom English is their first language) is so close to 100% that it is too difficult to measure and as a result, is no longer measured.

 

[Burnsys]

You copied and pasted word-for-word without proper citation and passed it off as your own ideas.

If you read the list you will note that those are not ideas, nor opinion, but historical facts.

 

[Bystander]

From a U.S. history site:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

... vs. Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

There was no cessation of economic, cultural, and diplomatic involvement with the world at any time in American history. This should be compared to the "isolationism" practiced by China and Japan.

If one wishes to define "American Isolationism" as a laissez faire foreign policy that is distinct from "isolationist policies" pursued at other times and places in history by other cultures, it is then necessary to recognize that it is distinct from those policies in that there is cultural and economic exchange, and that there is diplomatic connection with the rest of the world.

 

[Skyhunter]

Hee-Haw crowd aside , this is too good to pass up: Did you read and understand what those literacy stats were saying? They were about English literacy - and it's down because of the number of people for whom English is a second language.
As with most other developed countries, the native-born literacy rate (ie, English for people for whom English is their first language) is so close to 100% that it is too difficult to measure and as a result, is no longer measured.

I don't know about your state, (I'll look later) but here in CA that is not an accurate statement.

2,000,000 native English speakers in California are functionally illiterate*. (National Adult Literacy Survey)

 

[loseyourname]

Where are you quoting that from, Skyhunter? I'm at the NAAL site and their latest report has 9% of native English speakers being prose below basic nationwide, with no number on how many of those are completely nonliterate. 61% of native Spanish speakers are listed in the same category. The total below basic percentage is 14% prose, 12% document, and 22% quantitative, with 5% (11 million nationwide) being nonliterate.

It has no numbers by state. Here is the report I'm citing.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the link.

http://www.caliteracy.org/resourcesreferrals/literacystatistics/

I was trying to add it in an edit but the forum was lagging when I got an email telling me you responded.

[edit] I was also perusing the NAAL website to post the link you posted. I don't know where they came up with that number, I guess I will need to download the pdf and wade through the statistics to see where they arrived at the 2 million number.

 

[loseyourname]

Hmmm . . . I wonder where they're getting those numbers from, then. Maybe they paid for a more detailed report.

 

[scott1]

1948 Italy — The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated

They were trying to save demoracy not destroy it.They did corrupt that election but that was only to save demoracy in Italy
Did you know that hitler got into power by demorcratic elections?If the CIA(I know they didn't exist back then) courrouted that election 7 millon people whouldn't die but they whould have to courpet the elections in oder to prevent that form that happing.

 

[Burnsys]

They were trying to save demoracy not destroy it.They did corrupt that election but that was only to save demoracy in Italy
Did you know that hitler got into power by demorcratic elections?If the CIA(I know they didn't exist back then) courrouted that election 7 millon people whouldn't die but they whould have to courpet the elections in oder to prevent that form that happing.

This remind me the "We have to destroy the entire village to save it"

What do you think scot, argentina should have corrupted american elections so they could save 30.000 lives in irak? and more in afganistan?

Of course i know about hitler, i know bush came to power by elections too (Fraudulent) but that is a diferent topic.
.
Just like kissinger sayd when salvador allende was overtrown by a us supported military coup.
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." – About Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the popularly elected government of Salvadore Allende

 

[SOS2008]

RE: Isolationism - Isolationism may have been a fallacy, but it was a very real fallacy. I like to call it "belligerent isolationism". Oxymoron? Maybe, but the fact that it was important enough to put in writing in the Monroe Doctrine and the fact that even days before Pearl Harbor it prevented us from sending troops to Europe (even while sending them weapons) means that it was, at the very least, on our minds.

Today, isolationism is mostly just an ideology of liberals, but still, it's something they believe in very strongly. I would argue that it isn't practical or realistic - in fact, Clinton realized it after he became President - but that's probably best discussed in another thread...

Do you have sources to show that Isolationism was a fallacy, and/or more importantly that isolationism was/is an ideology held by liberals?

Hee-Haw crowd aside , this is too good to pass up: Did you read and understand what those literacy stats were saying? They were about English literacy - and it's down because of the number of people for whom English is a second language.

Yes I do realize that it is due in part to recent increase in illegal immigration, but not completely. (The Hee Haw crowd may be able to read--perhaps at the 4th grade level--so don’t like to read. )

... vs. Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
There was no cessation of economic, cultural, and diplomatic involvement with the world at any time in American history. This should be compared to the "isolationism" practiced by China and Japan.
If one wishes to define "American Isolationism" as a laissez faire foreign policy that is distinct from "isolationist policies" pursued at other times and places in history by other cultures, it is then necessary to recognize that it is distinct from those policies in that there is cultural and economic exchange, and that there is diplomatic connection with the rest of the world.

The Wiki link you provided does not coincide with your post. This is what I found in Wiki searching with "United States Isolationism:"

United States non-interventionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations, has had, according to some, a long history in the United States. Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism

This section in Wiki goes on to list others, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as favoring non-intervention (damn liberals), and reiterates much of what I already posted above from a U.S. History website.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)The Wiki link you provided does not coincide with your post. (snip)

"... In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. "

 

[Burnsys]

Evo, why did you cesored 80% of the list of the cia atrocitities saying it was copyrigth violation when the original article sayis we are free to quote if you had doubts you should have asked for the link, not DELETING 80% of the list.


http://www.voxfux.com/features/cia_a..._timeline.html

By Steve Kangas

© Copyright 1996 by Steve Kangas. Text can be quoted freely for non-commercial purposes only, with proper attribution.

The Author of this article was recently assassinated and made to look like it was a suicide. Type in (Steve Kangas) and read for yourself the extroardinarily suspicious murder of Kangas in the office building of one of America's most notorious "hard core" conservative billionaire zealots, Richard Mellon Scaife

 

[Evo]

Evo, why did you cesored 80% of the list of the cia atrocitities saying it was copyrigth violation when the original article sayis we are free to quote if you had doubts you should have asked for the link, not DELETING 80% of the list.

I searched google for a source and all I could find had restrictions, I found a source with identical information to what you had.

Please always list a source' I appreciate it.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the literacy thing, I'm not sure what to make of those numbers, Skyhunter - the CIA World Factbook has been stuck on 97% overall literacy for the US since 1999. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

I realized another flaw in Burnsys's "thesis" (using the word loosely...): His list was action-based while his argument against the Iraq war was motive-based. The reason? If he judged the Iraq war based on actions, it is clearly a pro-democracy action, and if he looked at the motivations behind his list, many of those actions were motivated by a larger pro-democracy goal (namely, opposing Soviet/communist expansion).

 

[russ_watters]

Just FYI, Burnsys - Evo wasn't clear on this, but just because a source says you can use it verbatim does not mean it doesn't still have to be sourced. It is plagarism to present any verbiage as your own that isn't your own - just not necessarily also a copyright violation.

 

[SOS2008]

"... In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. "

Aside from your use of a general definition of isolationism rather than a source specific to the U.S., how does this show there was never a period in U.S. history during which our country was isolationistic?

EDIT (addition) - Here are some excerpts from current educational curriculums in the U.S.:

Target Grade Levels: Grades 7-12
Themes: Foreign Policy, U.S. Influence Abroad, Isolationism, Imperialism, Interventionism

The Activity

At the time of the Spanish-American War, two opposite U.S. foreign policies went head-to-head: isolationism and interventionism. Those Americans supporting isolationism argued that the United States should stay out of other people's problems and instead concentrate on governing itself well. Interventionists, on the other hand, believed that it was America's right or responsibility to help its global neighbors and that in so doing, we would be sharing the benefits of the American system with less-developed countries.

· When did the United States embrace isolationism?
· When did it act as an imperialist?
· Why has the United States seen the Philippines as important to U.S. national interests?
· How have native cultures reacted to U.S. involvement in their country?
· How respectful has the United States been of Filipino culture?
· How does democracy conflict with the ideology of interventionism?
· Do students think the United States is currently more an isolationist or imperialist country? Why?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/educators/culture_philippines.html

Students will understand the causes, course, and consequences of the United States’ role in World War II.

Determine how America shifted from isolationism to intervention.
· Analyze the factors that led to militarism and fascist aggression in the world.
· Determine how the attack on Pearl Harbor forced the United States out of isolationism.
· Examine how the alliance systems led the United States into World War II.
· Investigate the major campaigns of the United States in the European and Pacific theaters; e.g., Midway, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, island hopping, and the bombing of Japan.

http://www.uen.org/core/core.do?courseNum=6250

And another source:

Robert A. Pollard, Economic Security and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1950 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 20-23

Several domestic factors constrained the Truman administration's freedom of action in foreign policy. A lingering isolationism among Congress and the public, manifested in sentiment for rapid demobilization and against large-scale foreign aid and defense programs, limited the administration's ability to meet worldwide American responsibilities. The economic dislocation and high inflation attendant upon the end of the war, coupled with the President's own fiscal conservatism, discouraged experimentation at home or abroad. By the same token, the Republican Party, after so many years out of power, hardly welcomed major foreign policy initiatives by the unelected President.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm

Do you have sources to show that Isolationism was a fallacy, and/or more importantly that isolationism was/is an ideology held by liberals?

I couldn’t find any sources to support your assertions. In regard to pre-WWII ideology, those who feared Orwellian results from the likes of Hitler and Mussolini were those who supported engagement in the war to stop the spread of Nazism/Fascism (i.e., extreme right).

Now interventionism has become identified with neocon imperialism (the Republican right), and fear of Orwellian results from Big Brother fascism is associated with the left. Perhaps this is the cause for confusion.

 

[Bystander]

Aside from your use of a general definition of isolationism rather than a source specific to the U.S., how does this show there was never a period in U.S. history during which our country was isolationistic(sic)?

Some people find use of unique definitions to be desirable when communicating ideas. Saves the confusion Alice endured when speaking with the caterpillar. The U. S. has always been a trading nation, part two of the definition, therefore, the U. S. has never been isolationist.

EDIT (addition) - Here are some excerpts from current educational curriculums{sic) in the U.S.:

"... two opposite U.S. foreign policies went head-to-head..."

... or, more correctly, two minority political factions made enough noise to cover the reasons behind the Spanish-American War: 1) the last gasp of "Manifest Destiny" plus active exercise of the Monroe Doctrine; 2) a very lucrative trade in sugar, rum, and tobacco; 3) a demonstration against French interests in Panama.

(snip)

 

[SOS2008]

Some people find use of unique definitions to be desirable when communicating ideas. Saves the confusion Alice endured when speaking with the caterpillar. The U. S. has always been a trading nation, part two of the definition, therefore, the U. S. has never been isolationist.

... or, more correctly, two minority political factions made enough noise to cover the reasons behind the Spanish-American War: 1) the last gasp of "Manifest Destiny" plus active exercise of the Monroe Doctrine; 2) a very lucrative trade in sugar, rum, and tobacco; 3) a demonstration against French interests in Panama.
(snip)

As I've documented to great extent, the "head-to-head" refers to the point at which America moved from isolationism to interventionism. I don't buy your reasoning, which not only is a stretch (trade is private sector activity, and only one small part of government foreign policy), but for which you fail to supply a source to support it. In references to history courses (e.g., in regard to U.S. imperialism and the Phillipines), and in regard to the Monroe Doctrine, the earlier Wiki link I provided goes on to state:

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines. Since this was the first take-over of non-contiguous territory where people speak a different language, this is generally considered the first colonial act of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism

In any event, if the U.S. was never considered to be isolationistic, then why is this being taught in history courses?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In any event, if the U.S. was never considered to be isolationistic, then why is this being taught in history courses?

I think that Bystanders point is that while the US may have been "isolationist" in a military sense (conflicts and alliances) the US was no so isolationist in other primary aspects of foriegn policy such as immigration and trade.
Unless I'm mistaken during the period where the US is noted to have become less isolationist in regard to foriegn conflicts and alliances there was actually an inverse effect on the aspects of immigration and trade due to the effects of industrialization and two world wars.

 

[SOS2008]

I think that Bystanders point is that while the US may have been "isolationist" in a military sense (conflicts and alliances) the US was no so isolationist in other primary aspects of foriegn policy such as immigration and trade.

Unless I'm mistaken during the period where the US is noted to have become less isolationist in regard to foriegn conflicts and alliances there was actually an inverse effect on the aspects of immigration and trade due to the effects of industrialization and two world wars.

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind. As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so? Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action. As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

Back to the main topic: With the advent of World War II and the Truman Doctrine/Marshall Plan, the U.S. was admired for helping global neighbors. As a new power, the U.S. started out promoting democracy very well. Unfortunately it didn’t continue to always be the case. The Spanish-American War followed by occupation and control of the Philippines at the turn of the century is considered the first imperialistic act. As this kind of behavior increased, so did resentment from the rest of the world.

 

[NewScientist]

US post-war (WWI) was very isolationist - this view in my mind is based mainly on the Senate's attitude (reflecting US public opinion) to the Versaille Peace Conference and League of Nations; and also on Wilson's speeches and motions post-war.

 

[Bystander]

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind.

Correct. Until congruence of the history of U.S. foreign policy with a "common" rather than "special" definition of "isolationism" is demonstrated, I maintain that assertion.

As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so?

Have you applied for import-export licenses recently? To whom do you apply? The government financed itself with duties and tariffs through most of the 19th century. That's a primary expression of foreign policy.

Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action.

Immigration? SA brought that up. Interesting. First thought is, "Huh? What's that got to do with the price of apples in Singapore?" Actually, it bespeaks very active political intervention. The information that there was a "land of milk and honey," where "streets are paved with gold" was widely disseminated, enough so to suggest that it was deliberate policy on someone's part. The "open door" did a lot to modify demographics of the home countries, and the knowledge of the existence of the U.S. had significant effects on "internal politics" around the world.

As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

"Isolationism" has been asserted to support another assertion that the U.S. lacks experience in international relations, which supported the original post through a couple more assertions. It's your "digression." Are you withdrawing the assertion?

(snip)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Original posts asserted there was no period of isolationism in U.S. history of any kind. As for private sector trade, or immigration, how do these activities qualify as "primary aspects" and where are the sources that say so? Conversely, is immigration a “primary aspect” of interventionism? Intervention sure as heck is about political/military alliances/action. As stated before, if members jumped through the google-hoop before posting, it would help prevent this kind of digression in threads. Discussion of this topic ends here for me.

A foreign policy is a set of political goals that seeks to outline how a particular country will interact with the other countries of the world. Foreign policies generally are designed to help protect a country's national interests, national security, ideological goals, and economic prosperity. This can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or through aggression, war, and exploitation. The 20th century saw a rapid rise in the importance of foreign policy, with virtually every nation in the world now being able to interact with one another in some diplomatic form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy

Legislation in regards to Trade, Foriegn Commerce, and Immigration are definitely primary aspects of foriegn policy. I don't need Google or sources for common sense.
As for "interventionism" it isn't exactly the opposite of isolationism. Intervening in another country's political affairs is only one way that foriegn policy can be handled and to not do so does not make a country isolationist by default. There are plenty of countries with open diplomatic relations and trade with other countries that stay steadfastly neutral when it comes to other nations politics.

"Isolationism" is often misused to refer to non-interventionism in general, rather than non-intervention conjoined with economic nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Perhaps you need to be hitting Google yourself.