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

[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

 

[Yonoz]

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 other words, it's about oil. I suppose you ride a bike to work, that your home is not connected to the electricity grid and that you wrote these words using a solar powered computer.

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.

That is a problem specific to the structure of the US government, I do not see how it relates to capitalism in general. How would the head of state come to power in other social structures?

Like any corporation they want to maximise profits to enrich their shareholders (the American people) and themselves.

Again, I fail to see how this problem is unique to capitalism. Do you think any individual that would find their way to such a position would see the greater good of mankind?

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.

So it is the US, not capitalism that is at fault in your opinion. What "favourable terms" are we talking about? Do you think Saddam was peacefuly negotiating a fair price for his oil when his troops accidentaly wondered into Kuwait? I do not think you can ever say his removal was bad. The current fighting is about control over Iraq, and I do not see how anyone other than the US will be any good for the Iraqi people. What is your agenda? How would you like to see the US act?

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.

An odd selection of titles for a thread meant to "find out". I think you would like to make a point, and so would I, there's no shame in that. There's no need to mask it.

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?

Was that a question or a comment?
How do you know what "the war is really about"? Do you know something we don't? Please enlighten us.

 

[Art]

It would appear the consensus so far is that the American government should abandon the Truman doctrine which has guided it's foreign policy since March 1947 and stop 'helping' the rest of us.

 

[klusener]

Theres the resolution they broke, which of course, deserves some sort of punishment which the US handed out.

But when the U.S. breaks U.N. resolutions, they don't get any punishment? During the first gulf war, a month after U.N. passed a resolution prohibiting any military attacks on nuclear facilities, the U.S. bombed two operating nuclear facilities in Iraq. There was no "punishment". (source: Killing Hope by William Blum)

 

[Art]

Yonoz,

This thread is about America's foreign policy and it's particular brand of capitalism as it affects the rest of the world - not capitalism per se.

It is not my intention to suggest that America is the only country which flexes it's muscles in the world but it is the largest both economically and militarily and so deserving of some debate in it's own merit. If you wish to discuss the subject of capitalism and it's relationship to wars on a more general level please feel free to start up a new thread.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

I agree that 9/11 has to be considered as an affect on US foreign policy. However, I disagree that the hatred is due to any vague notion of "dominance," or envy, or any other such claims. Also, I disagree that the US needs to take the fight "outside." A little better monitoring of who and what is allowed into the US would be a preferred route, and if the US would stop it's self serving interference in the world, it could win the hearts in minds of the world far better than trying to mold everyone into it's own image.

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.

True. These countries are definitely using this as a new form of protection. It is unfortunate, but perhaps someone could suggest an alternative way for them to remain sovereign countries?

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.

Or we could reword this as, Iraq was perceived as an easier target than capturing Osama Bin Laden?

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.

Kadafi lost family in earlier bombings, so was already trying to keep a low profile. Iran is more powerful, but also very smart. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., well, they too will do their best to ride it out.

 

[Informal Logic]

Ooooops, sorry Art. Agreed this is off topc.

 

[russ_watters]

Art, do you have a similar list for the USSR so we can make an objective comparison?

 

[Yonoz]

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.

I'm sorry, reading your response I realized we have a different view of some of the basics of this argument.
My approach is very practical. Maybe its my military background, but I cannot criticize anything without proposing an alternative. I do not see the point in arguing against capitalism without discussing the actual transition to other structures. We cannot just wake up one day and find we've abandoned our capitalist traits. Sure, if we all were conditioned to be selfless and sacrificing we could make it happen - but if that could be done, there'd be no need for a social structure. A social structure is needed because society has to deal with individuality. That is what I meant by "human nature" and I do not see any way that will change in society as a whole - maybe in a controlled experiment, but not in our materialistic and competitive global village. That, IMO, is the shortcoming of your argument - it's impractical.

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

What is this 'social wage'? Please explain.
I believe any elimination of private profit would only result in loss of productivity. Anyone who has experienced life in a socialist community can describe the inceasant conflicts over who works harder and who deserves more.

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'.

Perhaps, but even in that case, how would you change the environment one grows up in and gets socialised into? The only practical thing to do is to reverse the trends. Radical ideas are often too impractical.
I believe that even if you condition people to be good socialist subjects, they would still have an innate affinity for things like private possessions and accumulation of wealth and power.

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

I have no time to argue behaviourism, so I'll grant you these arguments. I still hold any society-wide change is impractical.

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

I fail to see how this proves that war is fought to secure a lucrative contract. It may imply corruption on behalf of Cheney, but wars do not start because some company will make money building tents. That's just absurd. You must have a very simplistic view of governmental procedures and decision making.

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 think maybe because I grew up in a socialist society I view things a little different. I do not believe it is that simple.

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 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 do not see how the development of weapons can be attributed to capitalism - all nations aspire to strengthen themselves.

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'.

That would only get worse in a socialist society.

But I believe that people are socialised to be greedy rather than being born that way (as posted above).

I still disagree :)

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).

Of course, I am referring to positive actions only. I should have made that clear.

It is important that people only take action once they understand the situation they are in, IMO.

IMO they can take action any time, but it should be peaceful and productive. The cause never justifies the means.

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 think education should be the priority of anyone who believes in social change. Israel is blessed with a plethora of social activists, much work to be done here though.

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'.

Perhaps it contributed, but I do not think that is the reason for the system's failure. First, the kibbutz was idolised as the ultimate product of zionism. We were envied and even despised by outsiders: we were pretty closed to them - having grown with the same people all our lives, and we were also pretty wealthy in Israeli terms, as the collective could afford a few luxuries. My kibbutz had a pool, tennis and basketball courts, a football field, a new car fleet, an entertainment hall that functioned as a cinema, and we never lacked anything. There was no relevance to how much electricity you used, food was free and we shared everything so people left their air conditioners constantly on, took food home just to throw it away, and abused anything that was common. Some people would start work at 10am and leave at 4pm, with a generous lunch break. Their supervisors did not care because they were under no pressure. This sort of disregard for the collective cannot be considered capitalist influence, and we were educated in a very socialist manner - until kindergarten, I slept with the rest of my age group in the children's home (the practice of never allowing children to sleep with their parents was stopped because it was found to be psychologically harmful). That is why I am so firm in my beliefs in this case. I am a big fan of socialism but it can never work perpetualy IMO. I would like to live in a collective again some day, but there are very few left, and newly founded ones are hard to be accepted into.

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz,

This thread is about America's foreign policy and it's particular brand of capitalism as it affects the rest of the world - not capitalism per se.

It is not my intention to suggest that America is the only country which flexes it's muscles in the world but it is the largest both economically and militarily and so deserving of some debate in it's own merit. If you wish to discuss the subject of capitalism and it's relationship to wars on a more general level please feel free to start up a new thread.

No problem.

 

[Art]

Art, do you have a similar list for the USSR so we can make an objective comparison?

No Russ I don't. The reason this list is on here is I was asked for specifics when I made a statement that America has projected her power throughout the world since WW2. However if the USSR ever re-emerges and becomes a major economic and political power with a foreign policy dedicated to dictating to other sovereign states I promise I'll dig up a similar list. In any case I don't see how a "I'm bad but he was worse" (which is where I suspect you are coming from) type of debate will really add anything to this discussion. In the meantime I am interested in obtaining the views of people with regard to the Truman doctrine of 1947 and it's application in the present day.

 

[Burnsys]

I fail to see how this proves that war is fought to secure a lucrative contract. It may imply corruption on behalf of Cheney, but wars do not start because some company will make money building tents. That's just absurd. You must have a very simplistic view of governmental procedures and decision making.

Not only tents.. also rockets, weapons, tanks, and airplains.

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said
------------------------------

Anyway if the vicepresident "Cheney" is corrupt and is using the war for make profits for his corporation what could you expect from the rest of the goverment... And more when he isn't even put in trial for that...

Now i posted about the Cia coup in iran in 1953 and all point that the coup was orchestated becouse the nationalist government was trying to nationalize the british owned oil company which was reporting profits to england of 170 million in 1950 alone..
Plus placing iran as the number one arms customer, accounting for $18.1 billion in weapons buyed directrly to Us corporations like Northrop and Texon between other.

British foreign office told: 'Such a dictator' (shah) 'would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms'. (39)

If you have any proof that the coup where executed for other means.. then explain please...

 

[hypatia]

I wish we had lived up to the ideals of the Truman doctrine of 1947. As odd as this sounds, Star Trek comes to mind, with there prime directive of non-interference in how a world may develope. Of course it didn't work for them , nor has it worked for us.

I believe that U.S. foreign policy, protects U.S. interest first, because it must. Then I hope it helps protect those who would suffer in the face minority dictatorships.

 

[russ_watters]

In any case I don't see how a "I'm bad but he was worse" (which is where I suspect you are coming from) type of debate will really add anything to this discussion.

[previous post]
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.

If only such a world existed where your choices were between "good" and "better". Well unfortunately, that world doesn't exist, Art and your choices sometimes are between "bad" and "disastrous". The US made a lot of decisions that looked at individually can be considered questionable - even bad.

But keep your eye on the ball - you yourself claimed in the second part that the world would be a better place without us. But the truth of the matter is that had we not made those decisions, we'd be watching the world be overrun by Soviet-style communism and the disaster that goes with it. That is what dominated our foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Instead of military dictatorships and puppets of the USSR, we have a world where essentially all of Europe is free, prosperous democracies. Where our enemies from WWII are prosperous, contributing members of the world community. A world where no two world powers have been at war in 65 years - for the first time in the history of the world. A world with a UN where countries go to talk about problems instead of fighting about them. That is the legacy of US 20th century foreign policy, Art - not some out of context list of individual actions.

Yes, I grant you we've made a lot of bad decisions - but there isn't a country more responsible for the good things that have happened in this world in the 20th century. So I absolutely disagree with your thesis: no, the world would not be a better place had US foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century been vastly different.

 

[fourier jr]

why shouldn't americans apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others? if it's wrong for the soviet union to overthrow or pressure governments to do one thing or another, why isn't it wrong for the US to assassinate other leaders or overthrow their governments? i guess everything the US does involves "spreading/defending democracy" & "freedom", etc. as if that isn't justa conservative cliche. there has never been much of a threat to US freedom from abroad. all the threats have come from things like the red scare, mccarthyism, cointelpro, total information awareness, the patriot act, etc. so don't try to say that US wars were somehow different from the soviet wars.

 

[Yonoz]

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"

That's really very nice, but with all due respect for Mr. Ibrahim, the only ones whom I respect less than politicians are journalists. Can you back that argument up seriously using something other than an obvious statement from 1945?

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.

I think this comment belongs in the Star Wars thread. Seriously, do you think a democratic country in the 21st century would try to "expand the empire"? Do you think the US needs Iraq as a "command post"? I knew American military bases were huge but I never thought they would need an entire country... You obviously have no idea about signal and communication intelligence gathering.
The only ones doing the intimidating are the Iran-sponsored insurgents who want to set up a fanatic religious regime. I do not see American GIs executing people in cold blood because they're trying to help build a democracy for themselves. If you call giving women the widest representation in an Arab parliamentary body in history "control" then I guess yeah, the US is trying to "control" the world. I for one would prefer being under the "control" of democracy and freedom than be "free" under a fanatic ayatollah.

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.

Huh? "imperial mafia"? "fundamentalists"? I did not know free enterprise was so bad. Sounds like the rest of the world is a Utopia and the US with its brain-washed minions are trying to spread evil and corruption in this otherwise perfect world. Get some proportion, this article you're quoting is far more deserving of classification as "propaganda" than anything that came out of the White House. Why doesn't the author move to Cuba or Iran for a few years, let's see him trying to publish that sort of criticism there.

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."

Everyone is assuming that of their moral authority. I'm sorry, I thought it was pretty much agreed upon: totalitarianism, poverty - bad; democracy, human rights, free enterprise - good.

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.

"Saudi and Irananian oil waiting defenselessly next door"? What the hell is he on about? Saudi oil is and always was under the control of the corrupt royal families, the US doesn't need military presence to access it. If anything, that military presence is harming the US oil interests in Saudi Arabia. Iranian oil is definitely not defenseless. How exactly will OPEC be "stripped of its independence"? Would you rather Europe depend on oil from tyrants? The US has the government least likely to intervene in trading because of state interests - it's called a "free market economy". This guy makes it sound as if the US is a borg collective.

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.

"Once the iron curtain will be removed, the transnational corporations will march into East Europe ready to privatise everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, WTO and the rest of the international financial extortionists. The people of Eastern Europe will then long for the totalitarian Soviet rule as freedom and human rights take their toll on their happily fulfilled socialist dream." Did anyone say propaganda?

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

So the whole of the civil administration and military leadership would send their brothers and sisters to fight an unjust war simply so that they can get reelected or a nice job in the defense industry, rather than one of those horrible jobs in fields of expertise they know much more about, such as financial consulting or marital advising.

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.

Militant? If these people are "militant", I guess the Iraqi regime, and the leaders of the insurgency are kindergarten teacher's aids.

Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war.

What role is that exactly? Seriously, is he just making things up?

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.

Is this guy delusional or what? What "arch-enemy"? No one here cared about Iraq. The closest thing Israel has to an "arch-enemy" is Iran. We all knew as soon as GWB carried his address that Israel will get blamed for the impending US military actions. Somewhere, somehow, someone will uncover a far-fetched idea in which Israel will profit immensely from something negligible such as Iraq's abundant water supply and that will then make it absolutely clear that Israel has played a major role etc. and once again it is the source of all evil here and everywhere.

 

[Yonoz]

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" ?

Call it what you like. Just make sure you're looking at the bigger picture. I can also say I'm enslaved to my boss, my familiy and my ambitions. I'm no buddhist, and Saddam's Iraq did not sell its soul to get some aid.

 

[Yonoz]

I agree that 9/11 has to be considered as an affect on US foreign policy. However, I disagree that the hatred is due to any vague notion of "dominance," or envy, or any other such claims.

I did not mean it in that sense. I meant the US is the major force powering modernisation in the Muslim world. It also has a very high profile - American civilians and officials are active in all corners of the globe. Every day there are massive numbers of individuals entering and exiting the US for a multitude of reasons. The protection given to US interests thus far was found inadequate.

Also, I disagree that the US needs to take the fight "outside." A little better monitoring of who and what is allowed into the US would be a preferred route, and if the US would stop it's self serving interference in the world, it could win the hearts in minds of the world far better than trying to mold everyone into it's own image.

The fight always has to be taken outside if one wishes to avoid their own homes to be part of it. But let's end the cliches - it is a rule of thumb that passive measures such as stricter border checks and intelligence gathering do not guarantee success. One must attack the source, and the source in this case was found to be dependent on the support of several sovereign countries.
You cannot win the hearts and minds of these people. You are not fighting a democracy, where there is freedom of press and pluralism. You are not targetted because you sold weapons to these countries. There are several factors at work here and they each have their own reasons for attacking the US. Some of them hate you because you teach their women that they can be independent, that they can work and that they should not tolerate physical abuse. Some hate you because their children lose interest in their heritage and its morals, turning to alcohol and provocative movies. Others hate the US simply because they have been told to hate it. They are told all their suffering and misery is due to the US and they do not know any better. You cannot win the hearts and minds of oppressed people. However, the ones that the US is particularly targeting (and rightly so), hate the US because it weakens their power. As religion loses its hold to capitalism and other liberal concepts, religious leaders lose their hold on the masses. They are fighting your entire set of values. They wish to remain in the old world where they are the absolute power, while your very existence threatens that, since your prosperity and wealth draws the masses away from their religion and heritage.
The US cannot limit its own businesses from entering other nations. If an Arab entrepreneur wishes to start a fast food franchise or provide American TV programming, what right does the US government have to disallow that? These are the "self serving interests" they are so mad about, and to deny them is to lose your morals. If you deny them the opportunity to learn about western values you are aiding their tyrants. If you allow them that opportunity, you raise the wrath of those tyrants. Now these tyrants are using those very masses you meant to free to fight you.

True. These countries are definitely using this as a new form of protection. It is unfortunate, but perhaps someone could suggest an alternative way for them to remain sovereign countries?

Their sovereignty is not challenged. It is the sovereignty of their leadership that is jeopardised by its abuse of human rights and aggressiveness to its country's neighbors.

Or we could reword this as, Iraq was perceived as an easier target than capturing Osama Bin Laden?

No, Osama Bin-Laden was hunted simultaneously. The US isn't fighting a particular organisation, it's fighting a paradigm.

Kadafi lost family in earlier bombings, so was already trying to keep a low profile. Iran is more powerful, but also very smart. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., well, they too will do their best to ride it out.

So do we agree the Iraqi situation has far-ranging global consequences and that Iraq was targeted partly as an example?

 

[Yonoz]

Not only tents.. also rockets, weapons, tanks, and airplains.

Boeing's Profits Skyrocket, Outlook Raised Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136770,00.html
"Our Integrated Defense Systems business again delivered strong revenue growth and outstanding profitability, and made significant progress on key programs," said CEO Harry Stonecipher

Lockheed profits take off
Friday, 25 October, 2002, 14:20 GMT 15:20 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2361539.stm
"US defence giant Lockheed Martin has turned in sharply higher profits, crediting strong sales of fighter jet equipment. "

Profits up at Northrop Grumman
January 28, 2003
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...27/daily10.html
"Together with the former TRW defense businesses, which completed one of their most impressive years ever, we are well positioned to benefit from increasing defense budgets and homeland security initiatives," Kresa said
------------------------------

Anyway if the vicepresident "Cheney" is corrupt and is using the war for make profits for his corporation what could you expect from the rest of the goverment... And more when he isn't even put in trial for that...

That is a legal matter and I am not familiar with US laws. Corruption, however, is everywhere and I do not think any other nation has done any better in that sense, with the exception of some European countries. I still maintain the administrative and military mechanisms involved in the process of initiating a war would not allow for such interests to prevail. You can argue that about politicians, but someone who has served in the armed forces would certainly have a sense of duty and responsibility to his compatriots and especially those under his responsibility. I cannot see someone who fought in several conflicts send others to an unnecessary war for his own personal gain. Maybe I'm naive in that sense, but I think I have a little more personal experience with that type of life.

Now i posted about the Cia coup in iran in 1953 and all point that the coup was orchestated becouse the nationalist government was trying to nationalize the british owned oil company which was reporting profits to england of 170 million in 1950 alone..

IMHO that was not a matter of a company trying to gain a financially lucrative contract, but one of a national interest in the form of a critical resource. The impact of an oil shortage would be felt by everyone, not just the oil tycoons. These governments are trying to preserve the quality of life for their citizens. It is very similar to the Suez Canal conflict in 1956.

Plus placing iran as the number one arms customer, accounting for $18.1 billion in weapons buyed directrly to Us corporations like Northrop and Texon between other.

Still, you haven't shown any proof that was the reason for the US and British intervention.

British foreign office told: 'Such a dictator' (shah) 'would carry out the necessary administrative and economic reforms and settle the oil question on reasonable terms'. (39)

If you have any proof that the coup where executed for other means.. then explain please...

As I mentioned before, in the case of oil, not unlike that of maritime shipping lines, there is a national interest. Once a particular event adversely affects all citizens in that country I think it's legitimate for the government to intervene to preserve the interest of its citizens.

 

[russ_watters]

why shouldn't americans apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others?

Good question - that's why I want to make the compairison and why I asked for the list. How do, say, North Korea (USSR/China) and South Korea (USA), resulting from the influence of the US and USSR compare? How about East and West Germany? Afghanistan (1980) and Afghanistan (2005)?

You'll be hard-pressed to find an example of Soviet incursion that worked out well for the country that was influenced. The US, on the other hand, created peaceful, stable, prosperous democracies. Everywhere? No - but an awful lot of them.

 

[klusener]

but an awful lot of them.

Please give me a list of "peaceful, stable, properous democracies" the U.S. has created and don't include Iraq or Afghanistan please, that would be overkill.

 

[sid_galt]

Please give me a list of "peaceful, stable, properous democracies" the U.S. has created and don't include Iraq or Afghanistan please, that would be overkill.

Iraq may not be a peaceful country though note it's because of terrorists, not the USA.

As for Afghanistan, why not? Afraid of the truth?

 

[klusener]

No it's because, first of all it is not stable; secondly, it is not peaceful; finally, it is not properous and it's the largest opium producer in the world.

 

[Yonoz]

The US, on the other hand, created peaceful, stable, prosperous democracies. Everywhere? No - but an awful lot of them.

It didn't just create some, it supported many more. Of course, the critics will claim by supporting these countries it made them dependent on its support.

 

[klusener]

Give me a list.

 

[Art]

If only such a world existed where your choices were between "good" and "better". Well unfortunately, that world doesn't exist, Art and your choices sometimes are between "bad" and "disastrous". The US made a lot of decisions that looked at individually can be considered questionable - even bad.

I see you are determined to have your 'we may be bad but they're worse' discussion regardless.

But keep your eye on the ball - you yourself claimed in the second part that the world would be a better place without us..

Not quite what I claimed Russ (not even as a Freudian slip) What I said was " the world etc... without your interventions". I have no objection to your sharing the planet, I simply prefer if you would keep your military at home.

But the truth of the matter is that had we not made those decisions, we'd be watching the world be overrun by Soviet-style communism and the disaster that goes with it.

That is a purely subjective matter of opinion which many people in many of the countries who have been 'helped' by America would disagree with.

That is what dominated our foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Instead of military dictatorships and puppets of the USSR, we have a world where essentially all of Europe is free, prosperous democracies. Where our enemies from WWII are prosperous, contributing members of the world community.

Your sheer arrogance is breath-taking. Please do not tell me how you gave us democracy here in europe, you copied your system of democracy from us Have you ever considered that europe would be an even stronger more advanced group of nations if we hadn't suffered your input after WW2? If you check your history books you will find we had a thriving civilization in this part of the world millennia before your nation even existed.
The reason America rose to such prominence after WW2 were two fold, first your towns, cities and manufacturing base were still 100% intact and secondly because you charged your european allies for your help. It was two years before America joined the war and so while we in europe were expending men and materials America was racking up profits. Britain has so far still only managed to make a tiny dent in the massive debt plus interest charges they accumulated for the war time provisions you sold them.

A world where no two world powers have been at war in 65 years - for the first time in the history of the world.

That is because most of America's wars have been fought through proxies. So as not to risk destruction of the homeland.

A world with a UN where countries go to talk about problems instead of fighting about them That is the legacy of US 20th century foreign policy, Art - not some out of context list of individual actions.

I presume the irony of this reference to the UN is intended??

Yes, I grant you we've made a lot of bad decisions - but there isn't a country more responsible for the good things that have happened in this world in the 20th century.

Can you provide some examples of the good things and I don't mean just good for America.

So I absolutely disagree with your thesis: no, the world would not be a better place had US foreign policy in the 2nd half of the 20th century been vastly different.

Maybe not for you Russ but for the rest of us I think it would. So as we are so ungrateful why not stop 'helping' us and just leave the rest of the world alone and leave us to our unimaginable fates.