Imperialistic History of the United States

[MaxS]

"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

The United States for instance has been involved in over 140 armed conflicts in its short 230 year existence.

United States Military Action From 1898 to the Present (note that the list is also incomplete)

(Note 1.) This list through 1975 is reprinted with few changes from: US Congress. House. Committee on International Relations [now Foreign Affairs]. Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs. Background Information on the Use of US Armed Forces in Foreign Countries, 1975 Revision. Committee print, 94th Congress, Ist session. Prepared by the Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1975. 84 p.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm

 

[kat]

I'm sorry...how many of these wars were in the U.S.?
Although...some of my ancestors WERE natural born warriors..I wouldn't consider most Americans "warriors" at all..well, unless you want to consider wars over who gets the remote control.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ah yes, 10,000th time this has been posted.

 

[MaxS]

I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion

 

[The Smoking Man]

Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.

:zzz: I guess we could entitle it 'America discovers placing dictators who are sympathetic' then.

America discovered a long time ago that creating unofficial spheres of influence was more profitable without all the problems of making sure their constitution was applied in any external territory or having to pay for things like welfare.

Plus you had the benefits of being able to invade if the ruler or population became unruly.

 

[loseyourname]

I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion

I'd say you're intentionally misusing the word 'imperialistic' because of the negative connotations it carries. You can say that any military action on foreign soil might be considered imperialistic, and sure, it might be if you take the broadest possible consideration of what that would mean. What you cannot say is that all military action on foreign soil is bad. Nonetheless, you want to imply that all these actions were bad, so you call them 'imperialistic.' According to you, stopping a genocide is an act of imperialism. Come on, Max. The US has done plenty of legitimately wrong things in its past. Stick with those.

 

[Art]

I'm sorry...how many of these wars were in the U.S.?
Although...some of my ancestors WERE natural born warriors..I wouldn't consider most Americans "warriors" at all..well, unless you want to consider wars over who gets the remote control.

That's why the US invented such things as cruise missiles, so the armchair warriors could fight wars from the luxury of their comfortable chairs using their remote controls

 

[MaxS]

WOW ok chill out, calling the U.S. imperialistic wasn't even the point of this thread bad title get over it

the point was to show that the u.s. has been involved in many many many many armed conflicts, contrasting to the middle eastern list in the other thread

http://www.gandhara.com.au/afghan_table.html

There it is for reference.

P.S. I don't believe the U.S. has ever gone to war to stop genocide. The U.S certainly stopped the genocide in Kosovo but it side stepped Africa entirely. I can't make an intelligent suggestion to what the motivation is, but I don't believe the betterment of humanity has anything to do with it.

P.P.S.

Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

Read that again: Broadly - the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

 

[Art]

IMO wars should be settled by the leaders of the countries in dispute being equipped with clubs and locked in a large room together and kept there until there is a resolution. I suspect there would be an awful lot less wars.
Somehow I doubt G W Bush would be in politics

 

[GENIERE]

I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion

Don't worry the job is near complete. Our sphere of influence includes the entire planet Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, yoUranus, Neptune, Pluto, and a goodly part of the Oort cloud. We'll skip Venus and Mercury, a little to hot for our liking and in the wrong direction; that is unless oil is discovered.

...

 

[Art]

Don't worry the job is near complete. Our sphere of influence includes the entire planet Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, yoUranus, Neptune, Pluto, and a goodly part of the Oort cloud. We'll skip Venus and Mercury, a little to hot for our liking and in the wrong direction; that is unless oil is discovered.

...

Isn't the reason Venus is so hot something to do with a runaway greenhouse effect? Perhaps they had a civilisation with politicians like ours at some time.

 

[The Smoking Man]

IMO wars should be settled by the leaders of the countries in dispute being equipped with clubs and locked in a large room together and kept there until there is a resolution. I suspect there would be an awful lot less wars.
Somehow I doubt G W Bush would be in politics

Mike Tyson for president?

 

[Art]

Mike Tyson for president?

Not with his recent fight record
It would be good fun though. You could vote for the person you really hate so they get a 'clubbing'

 

[loseyourname]

WOW ok chill out, calling the U.S. imperialistic wasn't even the point of this thread bad title get over it

the point was to show that the u.s. has been involved in many many many many armed conflicts, contrasting to the middle eastern list in the other thread

So you counteract a misrepresentation of one nation's history by misrepresenting another nation's history? How does that help things? Are we just going to continue running around in circles screaming at each other "No, your country is worse!?"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Eastern conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

If you believe that, why go and do the same thing?

 

[MaxS]

you're missing the point, I didn't go and say "The people of the United States are natural warriors! Just look at all this fighting they've done!"

 

[GENIERE]

politicians like ours at some time.

Well since your're being nice (I think) I'll agree. I'll encourage you to think about minimizing governments so they cause the least damage.


...

 

[Mercator]

It's incredible how a simple message from MaxS immediately triggers the defensive reflex and let people think how they can discredit the writer without having to discuss the core of the matter. He just says that we have no right to see Middle East people as "natural warriors" having the bloody history we have, in the US AND in Europe. And he's right. No need to try to sideline the discussion on semantics again.

 

[Art]

It's incredible how a simple message from MaxS immediately triggers the defensive reflex and let people think how they can discredit the writer without having to discuss the core of the matter. He just says that we have no right to see Middle East people as "natural warriors" having the bloody history we have, in the US AND in Europe. And he's right. No need to try to sideline the discussion on semantics again.

here here Apologies for my little jaunt to Venus

 

[fourier jr]

"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

The United States for instance has been involved in over 140 armed conflicts in its short 230 year existence.

United States Military Action From 1898 to the Present (note that the list is also incomplete)

i think that's the document (or one like it) that inspired bill blum's awesome masterpiece "killing hope" which has a chapter on each US military or CIA operation since WWII.

i would also add this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_imperialism

 

[MaxS]

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. [note -- Smedley Butler is one of a handful of men who have received the Congressional Medal of Honor TWICE]

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

 

[GENIERE]

Smedley Butler on Interventionism…

A remarkable general and Republican politician.

 

[MaxS]

to me he's definitely a forgotton hero of the united states, for the statement he made to congress - it is sadly ignored today, but I believe it applies very well now as it did then.

 

[The Smoking Man]

to me he's definitely a forgotton hero of the united states, for the statement he made to congress - it is sadly ignored today, but I believe it applies very well now as it did then.

I believe he is being featured in a new 'documentary'/'activist' film http://www.thecorporation.tv/ where his honesty was cited as an example over the abuse of government power.

 

[Mercator]

here here Apologies for my little jaunt to Venus

No THAT was funny, though it was a little bit far fetched to speak about civilization. I was writing about the first, immediate reaction on MAxS post.

BTW this spelsjekk is graet!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

I believe that was my comment that you took out of context regarding the warrior-resistance culture of Afghanistan.

I'm sorry to make you cry

Sorry, discussing politics isn't for babies or the weak of heart. My comment was supported by an extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan for the purpose of showing the flawed assumption of the original article - whereas your only "sources" here seem to be your emotions.

Here is the original post, in the interested of authenticity:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=667517&postcount=10

 

[MaxS]

Excuse me but try not to attack me personally when you're disagreeing with a point I'm making. I didn't mention who made the post for a reason. Note that my contention wasn't an attack on you.

Now -

I didn't take your quote out of context AT ALL. Your "support" of an "extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan" to prove the Afghani's are natural born warriors is nothing but a list of conflicts that could lead a naive reader to assume, "Hey, jeez, they sure have had a lot of wars, those damn barbarians. Those uncivilized savages don't deserve the respect of being called being humans. No, they're natural born warriors."

Not only is this line of thinking logically flawed it is racist.

The reason I posted a list of U.S. conflicts was my "support" if you want to call it that to show you can do the same thing about our own country.

You have no platform to stand on as an American or European if you're trying to patronize the people of Afghanistan.

That was the purpose of my post, "warrior-resistance culture" indeed.

 

[devil-fire]

"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

i agree. i also thought this comment showed a lapse in judgment.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I didn't take your quote out of context AT ALL. Your "support" of an "extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan" to prove the Afghani's are natural born warriors is nothing but a list of conflicts that could lead a naive reader to assume, "Hey, jeez, they sure have had a lot of wars, those damn barbarians.

No, it is not the "conflicts" on the list, it is the fact that the list if full of "resistance" movements, especially in response to being occupied by foreign powers. You completely missed this point.

Furthermore, the comment was provided to illustrate that the US is going to have a tough time controlling Afghanistan in the long-term because, well, just look at their history.

What you have done is twisted my words out of context, in fashion no better than modern news media - bravo! - in order to get others riled up.

 

[MaxS]

Nowhere in your comment does it state that the point of the list was to illustrate that the U.S. would have a tough time controlling Afghanistan. All it said was, paraphrasing, Afghanis are natural warriors, look at all these wars they fought.

Also just because they've had a lot of wars and resistance movements does not mean they are "natural warriors" any more than any other people under occupation.

I reiterate: The comment was racist.