Easy there, Cayo. I'm aware of our imperialism in Latin America.
We orchestrated a coup in the early 20th century against Columbia that created Panama as a nation. We did that so we could control the Panama Canal.
We invaded - freakin invaded - The Dominican Republic in the 60s to put in place a government that was friendly, not to the US, but to the US business interests. We opposed Fidel Castro because of the cost to US business, and we are the only idiotic country in the Western Hemisphere embargoing Cuba simply because we failed in our subversive attempt against the popular reforms of Castro. If the US was willing to admit our policy of the 50s/60s was a mistake, US business interests, and the Cuban people, would be enjoyin tremendous economic relations. I personally look forward to the day when I can sit on a beach in Cuba.
Our central American policies in the 80s under Reagan are repleat with examples of opposing populist leaders who wanted to positively affect poverty, and of supporting banana republic dictators who clearly committed atrocities of all sorts. The two most egregious examples of this after the change in leadership in Niceragua are Guatemala (I know of the official Guatemala death squads) and El Salvedor.
Our illegal support of the Sandinistas against the rather fairly elected government of Niceragua are also replete with support of murderers and criminals. Hell, I've a friend who was a ranger who several times took part in missions inside of Niceragua. It happened. I'm aware of it. I make no apology for it.
It does serve to reinforce something I believe about the world:
Zealotry to an ideology dehumanizes people with opposing ideas.
Conversely, you can't deny that opposing ideologies also commit atrocities in pursuit of their goals. I'm against a military confrontation with Iran, but Iran has its share of crimes against humanity, does it not?
I like the populist message of Hugo Chavez, and I think if he achieves his goal of using the oil revenue for the welfare of the people, he will have achieved something remarkable. But it alarms me greatly that he has tried to install himself basically as President for life, and even more so that he has shut down newspapers and radio/TV stations. People on the left in this country aren't saying anything about that.
And that's been my point in this thread, not that Professor so-and-so is wrong. On the count of professor so and so, I'm doing some research right now, we'll see what I can come up with.
But as for an article, Marko, that supports your positions without calling people Imperialists and tuning out the center, that ought to be gently taught how the big economic picture is working in our country over the last 50 years, read this article:
It supports the notion that it's Democrat presidents that control spending. It clearly shows how Reagan and Bush II have had horrible, long-term consequence on our nation's economy that are imperiling our standards of living. And it does so without calling anyone a pejorative.
And if you don't see the difference in tone, and you don't see that difference in tone as a part of the solution that everyone who cares ought to embody, you're not the intellectual you should be.
Meantime, my research may take me a while. So be patient, please.
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
sorry for being a dick,expected we were really going to get into it,you defused it with the kind of more level headed discourse you are advocating ,good.
we suported Eden Pastora and the contras against the Sandinistas,unless you are refer to the initial ousting of Somoza when we ,after supporting him his brother and Father,we finally had enough as did even the Nicaraguan oligarchy,when he stole relief money from earthquake victims then indiscriminately bombed civilians.The Sandanistas were not the majority but the largest cohesive group,Carter tried to prop up a new kinder gentler oligarchy.After years of undermining by Reagan,the SANDANISTAS achieved little and were voted out, not so much because nICARAGUANS HATED oRTEGA as that they knew US MEDDLING WOULD CONTINUE.We supported Chamorro and she failed to solve the countries problems either,now Ortega has been reelected,we'll see.
cHAVEZ HAS HELD MULTIPLE INTERNATIONALLY monitored elections.He tried to CONSTITUTIONALIZE ,PERPETUAL REELECTION.sO THE PEOPLE HAD TO RATIFY it first and even then keep reelecting him.The people voted no.I like Chavez but don't want him in there forever.The deposed oligarchy controls/controlled the media ,and spent years doing about a quintuple Fox on Chavez,he finally had enough and imposed constitutionally legal restrictions on them.Gilberto Cisneros is the Rupert Murdock of Latin America largely responsible for the hatchett job.
Critisisms of Chavez that seem valid are, he is vindictive against those he deposed,He supposedely has a very high personal expenditure hypocritical to his populism.[ seems like righties generally favor that type of thing,ok parting cheap shot]
Somosa, that's the guy I was trying to think of. I remember the footage of his goons simply executing a reporter in the country. I was 11. It was 1979. The US backed him.
I tend to think the era since 1990/1995 is a different era in terms of foreign policy direction because of the absence of a counterweight to US hegemony. To me, there was a rationale that the West support tyrants in certain areas, despite heinous behavior, because the WarsawPact supported tyrants, and were (IMO) far more ruthless in justifying the heinous behavior of the folks on their side.
Since 90/95, my policy ideals changed because we really need to prop up people and institutions that support what used to be US human rights examples. Unfortunately, under Bush II, our examples have started to include Stalinist-style gulags.
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
So I read through the entire article, Marko, and I don’t disagree with much of the statistical fact gathering.
I also agree that the military-industrial complex (MIC) is a revenue waster in the economy, and the funds diverted to MIC would prove to have far greater return on investment if they were put into a variety of other arenas, particularly education. If even a modest fraction of the monies were diverted to shoring up Social Security and health care, this might be a better place to live.
My main issue is the tone of the writer in the upper portion of the article, which is insulting, at least to me, and thus I tune out the writer to some extent.
It is also a concern to me, and I wish I knew whether it was to you, that the author spends 80 percent of the article describing the problem, and less than 20 percent on solution. Indeed, his solutions are entirely vague and entirely untargeted. He seems to want to voice his negativity and proclaim “America is a bad place and its leaders are stupid.” I don’t disagree with the latter, at least.
I don’t think the MIC is in the best interest of this nation. I’m not sure I ever said anything that looked like that. What I have said is that US Military leadership does not start wars for personal glory or to make money for their favorite business sectors. There are probably individual members of the military who do have maverick ideas such as those, but you and I have no way of knowing in which cases they exist.
There is a bureaucratic military and a Unit Command military. Unit Commanders tend to be much more restrained in their warmongering, because they’ve seen firefights in person. I know many of these types of people, and I am consistently incensed by people’s characterizations of them as General Custer’s of the world. Rather, most of them are more akin to the Robert E. Lee’s of the world. I consider biased and groundless attacks on their character a type of sacrilege, especially when they are committed by people who have done little more to give to their country freely than pay taxes (which, after all, isn’t voluntary).
Remember that I come from the Starship Troopers school of citizenship: If you do not voluntarily give several years of your life either to the military or to a civic institution (police, healthcare service, hell, even being a dog-catcher would do nicely in my world if you’re not into the Army or whatnot), then I feel entirely justified in saying you shouldn’t be given the right to vote. I’m definitely a radical in that regard. If this policy were followed, I think the country would be a better place. Free-radicals could have every right they now do except the right to vote. I’m not even remotely uncomfortable with that idea. In this fashion, I believe you’d bring people who understand Stoicism to the electorate.
Anyhow, back on topic: I agree with the statistics. I agree with the principle that our investment into the MIC has had a more negative effect on our economy than positive.
But what this article does not address is the Geo-Political situation between 1946 and 1990/95 (depending on whether one considers the end of the Cold War to be the reunification of Germany in 1990 or the failed coup against Boris Yeltsin in 1995).
There really was a cold war, a detente between a power that wanted to be hegemonic and forcibly change the nature of man to something that ultimately clearly proved a failure – the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, the Soviet Empire really did want to expand into every corner of the world.
To me, it is undeniable that some measure of the MIC investment was necessary to preserve the world from being overrun by the communist agenda. That point, to me, can’t be argued. What can be argued is how much of the habits developed in spending to ensure peace/freedom/stability in “The West” were unnecessary. Some, not all. What the percentage of “real waste” from that era would be, I could not begin to guess.
What also cannot be argued is that no one else in the world was going to stand against Soviet tyranny the way the US did. I would think you would be proud of that – but honestly I have no idea what you think was going on in the world between 1946 and 1980 (when the US finally committed to economic victory in waging the Cold War). Had we not conducted the Berlin Airlift beginning in 1946, Stalin would have crept westward.
Ultimately, our MIC spending out-performed (for lack of a better term) its equivalent in the Soviet Union. Their attempts at matching our MIC formula caused so much suffering domestically that basically the entire economy collapsed. We won.
And at the point we won, the country needed to start reaping “the peace dividend”. Clinton was doing so. In retrospect, I’m much more pro-Clinton now than I was at the time. It is tremendously unfortunate that leaders in this country cannot unite under the banner that we need to transition our economy away from the MIC, because much good could be done in diverting that money. As we both have known since before these discussions began: Eisenhower was the first (and best) to criticize the problems arising from our military-industrial complex. That was almost 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, 9/11 happened during a completely incompetent administration, and the peace dividend was squandered for the war in Iraq.
At this point in the Geo-Political scene, it’s not clear whether the US can change gears and try to re-reap the peace dividend. In theory, it’s possible, but we’ve gone and stirred up the hornets nest in the Middle East, and the entire world depends on the Middle East for energy. If we pull out within a year, as Obama and Clinton advocate (and which I support) we may do more harm to the world’s energy supply than not. If we leave a vacuum, yes, it’s our fault. But there are serious consequences for the entire world if we do leave that vacuum. Unlike Vietnam, when no real strategic resource was at stake, human beings everywhere are starving for energy. And most of it comes through the Straights of Hormuz…
I personally am willing to take that risk. I personally see the next great economic expansion coming from the pursuit of alternate energy sources, and I know the US won’t get there without either a miracle from some genius scientist (not out of the question – it’s happened in US history before) or by diverting money away from a great deal of unnecessary spending (not just military spending, although the latest budget shows that the easiest big gains seem to be possible in that sector) toward other sources.
I don’t deny that the US is in decline, and I suspect strongly that our place as “economic superpower” will be overtaken by China in my lifetime. (I do disagree that the EU is a single economy, btw, as do a great many Europeans).
What I don’t deny is that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman fucking Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow. And whether anyone gives a shit or not, I’m resolved to look for leaders like Obama, who rise above mean-spirited attacks, and who recognize that decency is a civic virtue everyone should try to uphold.
And that’s how all people should ascribe to live.
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
So Helio, Heinlein is the source of your political views? Perhaps I can put it more clearly; I see America as Earth in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and it is only a matter of time until the Moon (rest of the present day world) starts hurling large rocks at us (911 and beyond).
You might fit well into my book club.
-d
__________________
Could it be that intense partisanship unhinges us all, leading us to being with the conclusion we prefer, and then to reason backward to reach it? -William Falk
I just saw that you reposted, so I will have to get back with you later on your new post...
Helio, I read your article. Thanks, I enjoyed reading it. It is a very informative article. This author didn't "proudly display his partisanship" in the first paragraph, but his partisanship does reveal itself throughout the article. He is obviously a Bill Clinton lover - nothing wrong with that. His criticism of the neo-cons are just more subtle and I guess you could say that they adhere to the "standard by which reasonable people conduct discussions".
I still don't understand why it matters that Chalmers Johnson bluntly calls out the Bush administratrion for being imperialist in nature. You might want to consider this as a possible truth.
Take a look at Bush's policies. They have taken on a unilateral approach. He doesn't give a crap about international laws. He has created new rules of international engagement without agreement by other nations. He ignores the Geneva conventions. He mocks due process and habeus corpus. He ignores the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. He ignores the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He ignores the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty. Most importantly, he is ignoring the CONSTITUTION. He has shredded the Constitution at every turn, destroying the institutional gift of those they pretend to revere. His signing statements - probably close to a thousand of them - completely obliterate the checks and balances principle of the Constiution. His admitted spying on Americans completely violates our rights under the 4th Amendment. His invasion of Iraq against the international law codified in the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory, violates the Constitutional requirement to hold such treaties to the highest law of the land. If this isn't a president hellbent on imperial ambitions then I don't know what else to say. Anybody who cares about the Constitution should be fucking furious. So, Helio, why is it so wrong that Chalmers is calling the Bush admin imperialist-warmongerers?
Quote:
"Imperialism means, among other things, unilateralism in the decision making and actions of a nation, regardless of any humanitarian or other motives it may put forward."
There are many different definitions of what imperialism means. I think you could safely say that Bush's Iraq war - and the way he conducts his policies - could easily fit into the category of imperialism.
Quote:
"As militarism, the arrogance of power, and the euphemisms required to justify imperialism inevitably conflict with America's democratic structure of gov't and distort its culture and basic values, I fear that we will lose our country. If I overstate the threat, I am sure to be forgiven because future generations will be so glad I was wrong. The danger I forsee is that the United States is embarked on a path not unlike that of the former Soviet Union during the 80s. The USSR collapsed for three reasons - internal economic contradictions driven by ideological rigidity, imperial overstretch, and an inability to reform. Because the United States is far wealthier, it may take longer for similar afflictions to do their work. But the similarities are obvious and it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as empire dominating the world, must go on forever." -- Chalmers Johnson
My main issue is the tone of the writer in the upper portion of the article, which is insulting, at least to me, and thus I tune out the writer to some extent.
I addressed this in my last post. Why do you feel insulted that the author describes the Bush admin as imperialist?
Quote:
It is also a concern to me, and I wish I knew whether it was to you, that the author spends 80 percent of the article describing the problem, and less than 20 percent on solution. Indeed, his solutions are entirely vague and entirely untargeted. He seems to want to voice his negativity and proclaim “America is a bad place and its leaders are stupid.” I don’t disagree with the latter, at least.
The article you presented offers ZERO solutions.
Quote:
But what this article does not address is the Geo-Political situation between 1946 and 1990/95 (depending on whether one considers the end of the Cold War to be the reunification of Germany in 1990 or the failed coup against Boris Yeltsin in 1995).
There really was a cold war, a detente between a power that wanted to be hegemonic and forcibly change the nature of man to something that ultimately clearly proved a failure – the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, the Soviet Empire really did want to expand into every corner of the world.
To me, it is undeniable that some measure of the MIC investment was necessary to preserve the world from being overrun by the communist agenda. That point, to me, can’t be argued. What can be argued is how much of the habits developed in spending to ensure peace/freedom/stability in “The West” were unnecessary. Some, not all. What the percentage of “real waste” from that era would be, I could not begin to guess.
What also cannot be argued is that no one else in the world was going to stand against Soviet tyranny the way the US did. I would think you would be proud of that – but honestly I have no idea what you think was going on in the world between 1946 and 1980 (when the US finally committed to economic victory in waging the Cold War). Had we not conducted the Berlin Airlift beginning in 1946, Stalin would have crept westward.
Ultimately, our MIC spending out-performed (for lack of a better term) its equivalent in the Soviet Union. Their attempts at matching our MIC formula caused so much suffering domestically that basically the entire economy collapsed. We won.
To address the geo-political situation between 1946 to 1990/95 would require a much lengthier article, which he does address in his book, "The Sorrows of Empire" I own it. He never denies that there was a legitimacy in defending our interests against the evil empire - USSR. He actually believes that American imperialism started to flourish after the Cold War ended. Instead of scaling back our military in the 90s, Cheney instead convinced Americans that it was necessary to keep the military at Cold War levels because of the "threat of Third World countries, terrorism, subversion, insurgency and drug trafficking that are menacing to the US, its citizenry, and its interests in new ways." If you read the National Security Strategy of 1990 you would see that they basically "sought to confront the end of the cold war by embarking on a grandiose project to police the world."
He also believes that American imperialism didn't completely rear its ugly head until days after September 11th, 2001. And, as I wrote in my last post, I don't understand how you don't think Bush Jr. is not an imperial president.
Quote:
What I don’t deny is that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman fucking Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
Enough with your Lennon quote already...
Quote:
And whether anyone gives a shit or not, I’m resolved to look for leaders like Obama, who rise above mean-spirited attacks, and who recognize that decency is a civic virtue everyone should try to uphold.
I, too, hope Obama can get the country back on track. If you read any of Chalmers Johnsons writings you will see that he simply wants America to go back to what it used to stand for before the neo-cons destroyed it.
I will end this post with a quote from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. made on the first anniversary of 9/11: "One of the astonishing events of recent months is the presentation of preventive war as a legitimate and moral instrument of US foreign policy....During the Cold War, advocates of preventive war were dismissed as a crowd of loonies....The policy of containment plus deterrence won the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone thanked heavens that the preventive-war loonies had never gotten into power in any major country. Today, alas, they appear to be in power in the United States."
Linear Mode
