What's the title going to be? "I Duh'd it My Way"?

UG....one of the first acts of Daniel Ortega on his return to office was to join the anti-American group, ALBA.

So what did the illegal Iran/Contra scam really accomplish?

What did Reagan/GHW Bush arming both Iran and Iraq accomplish?

And why was it in the US best interest to divert most US troops and resources from Afghanistan and hunting down and dismantling al Queda and declare Iraq the "central front in the war on terrorism?"

I'm off for now, but I'll be back to discuss Iraq and its uncertain future, particularly:

What has been accomplished when the fastest growing political movement in Iraq is al Sadr's extremist fundamentalist group with ties to Iran?

What did funding and arming Sunni tribal chiefs as part of the Anbar Awakening accomplish other than give these guys the wherewithal to oppose the central government when the US pulls out.

What about those millions of refugees and displaced persons as a result of 4-5 years of sectarian violence, many of whom formed the foundation of the Iraqi middle class (doctors, lawyers teachers, etc) and many of whom (particularly Sunnis) who are not likely return to Iraq, in part because they have no home to return to and are highly distrustful of the Shia controlled government.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, if you think the United States is imperialist, you've not understood very much of US history at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, all those interventions at the request of United Fruit were just horseplay. We didn't really steal Hawaii, or crush the Philippines, or mess with Costa Rica and Haiti for 130 years.

None of that stuff actually happened. No, really.

[TGRR]

U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution
1893
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention

The Spanish-American War
1898
Inter-State War

U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War
1898-1899
Civil War & Foreign Intervention

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

Boxer Rebellion
1900
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention
Chinese Government & "Boxer" Rebels

The Moro Wars
1901-1913
Colonial Wars
Philippine Muslim Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution
1903
Secessionist Revolution & Foreign Intervention
Colombia

The Banana Wars
1909-1933
Civil Wars & Foreign Intervention
Various Rebel Groups In Central America

U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914
Inter-State War
Mexico

[TGRR]

Let's not even get into the more recent trade shows, like Vietnam or Desert Storm. All but about 6 American wars (Revolution, 1812, Shay's Rebellion, Bleeding Kansas, WWII, Korea) have been at the behest of monied American interests.

We might not have had a colonial office, but our imperialism is just as real as England's or France's.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Oh, yes, all those interventions at the request of United Fruit were just horseplay. We didn't really steal Hawaii, or crush the Philippines, or mess with Costa Rica and Haiti for 130 years.

.

Sorry, TG, but that is ill-considered.

By comparison with actual, permanent empire building, horseplay is exactly what interventions in protection of US interests from things like expropriation by local-dictator men on horseback was. We'd go in, sort the matter more or less well, and then we'd take off. Look up how many times that happened -- it's a political act typical of Gap states.

,
That is not the action of builders of empires, and that is very much our actions for those hundred and thirty years.

The Philippines were not crushed. They developed. Remember, they had Spanish rule to remember. They don't like Spain as much as they do us, even today. That should tell you a little something. Will it ever?

"Steal Hawaii"??? What, do the Hawaiians want it back to establish an autonomous collective? [/Monty Python & The Holy Grail voice]

Seriously, TGRR, your idea of "imperialism" is largely at variance with the historical examples. See, you've been taken in by another dumb leftist idea, where I have not.

Try Max Boot, The Savage Wars Of Peace for a good look at the whole.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TGRR

All but about 6 American wars (Revolution, 1812, Shay's Rebellion, Bleeding Kansas, WWII, Korea) have been at the behest of monied American interests.

Inasmuch as the only American interests there are are monied to one degree or another -- they are traders -- and they in their turn make even those Americans not employed by them monied also, so what? America's business is business, and about the only thing rulers can do with business is mess it up.

The monied interests are invariably your interests, in the grand scheme of things. And mine no less, of course.

South and Central America?

See the School of the Americas....the name changed by the Bush admin to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation because of the notorious reputation of the SOA.

The only thing that could be said is that support for this "school" by US presidents has been bi-partisan since its inception.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas (SOA; Spanish: Escuela de las Américas) is a United States Department of Defense facility at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia in the United States.

Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of them became notorious for human rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri, Rios Montt and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia's Hugo Banzer, as well as some of Augusto Pinochet's officers. The terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was educated there in 1961, although he never graduated. Critics of the school argue that the education encouraged such practices and that this continues in the WHINSEC. This is denied by the WHINSEC and its supporters who argue that the alleged connection is weak. According to the WHINSEC, the education now emphasizes democracy and human rights.....

According to the Center for International Policy, "The School of the Americas had been questioned for years, as it trained many military personnel before and during the years of the "national security doctrine" -- the dirty war years in the Southern Cone and the civil war years in Central America -- in which Latin American militaries ruled or had disproportionate government influence and committed serious human rights violations. Training manuals used at the SOA and elsewhere from the early 1980s through 1991 promoted techniques that violated human rights and democratic standards. (that would be the Reagan years) SOA and WHINSEC graduates continue to surface in news reports regarding both current human rights cases and new reports."

Defenders argue that today the curriculum includes human rights as described above. They also argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its graduates.

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

[Aliantha]

UG, the fact that you can't agree that the US has employed imperialist policies historically is precisely how this imperialist behaviour is propagated.

Somewhat in the favour of the US though is the fact that every world power has committed the same mistakes. There's not one ever that didn't try to promote what they saw as the best way to live to the heathen natives.

I guess that doesn't mean the US is better. Just the same. No different to the British or the French or the Greeks or anyone else.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Apollo

I think I kind of like this tradition of ex-presidents writing books after their terms. It's like they feel that they have to answer to the decisions they've made during office.

Didn't the Greeks do something similar? It was something like... every leader had to "stand trial" at the end of their reign of power and be judged by some kind of committee of citizens? Or something like that...?

The two aren't really related at all I guess, and I might be wrong about the whole Greek reference, but this is the first time I've noticed the comparison.

Actually a lot of those guys (Greeks) were bright enough to write because they enjoyed it. Their arguments and philosophies were actually worth something. I miss that. *sigh*

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, TG, but that is ill-considered.

By comparison with actual, permanent empire building, horseplay is exactly what interventions in protection of US interests from things like expropriation by local-dictator men on horseback was. We'd go in, sort the matter more or less well, and then we'd take off. Look up how many times that happened -- it's a political act typical of Gap states.

,
That is not the action of builders of empires, and that is very much our actions for those hundred and thirty years.

Tell it to Smedley Butler. He had a thing or two to say on the subject, and he has a bit more credibility than you.

And we didn't stay in Hawaii? What?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Inasmuch as the only American interests there are are monied to one degree or another

Wow.

[sugarpop]

Actually UG, many Hawaiians DO want their country back. My brother has been talking about this for ages. (He has been living there for the past 30 years or so.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4198210.shtml

[classicman]

And Texans want to secede

The Republic of Texas

Not only did the Lone Star State secede from the Union in 1861 to join the Confederacy, but before Texas acquired statehood in 1845, it had been an independent country for nine years. Thus, there are double precedents for the recent Research 2000 poll, taken for Daily Kos, that showed 37% of Texans believe their state would be better off as a separate country. Among Republicans, the party faithful are evenly split, 48% nation; 48% state. As for Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) recent pro-secessionist comments, 58% of Texans disapproved, but 51% of Lone Star Republicans approved.

[piercehawkeye45]

Let them go...

Having done what they could to muck up the state’s science curriculum standards, fringe right-wingers on the Texas State Board of Education are now moving to politicize the social studies curriculum for public schools. Texas Freedom Network just sent out the following press release:

The Texas State Board of Education is set to appoint a social studies curriculum “expert” panel that includes absurdly unqualified ideologues who are hostile to public education and argue that laws and public policies should be based on their narrow interpretations of the Bible.

TFN has obtained the names of “experts” appointed by far-right state board members. Those panelists will guide the revision of social studies curriculum standards for Texas public schools. They include David Barton of the fundamentalist, Texas-based group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerance of homosexuality.

It gets worse.

Barton, former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, is a self-styled “historian” without any formal training in the field. He argues that separation of church and state is a “myth” and that the nation’s laws should be based on Scripture. He says, for example, that the Bible forbids taxes on income and capital gains. Yet even such groups as Texas Baptists Committed and the Baptist Joint Committee have sharply criticized Barton’s interpretations of the Constitution and history.

Barton also acknowledges having used in his publications and speeches nearly a dozen quotes he has attributed to the nation’s Founders even though he can’t identify any primary sources showing that they really said them.

Some state board members have criticized what they believe are efforts to overemphasize the contributions of minorities in the nation’s history. It is alarming, then, that in 1991 Barton spoke at events hosted by groups tied to white supremacists. He later said he hadn’t known the groups were “part of a Nazi movement.”

In addition, Barton’s WallBuilders Web site suggests as a “helpful” resource the National Association of Christian Educators/Citizens for Excellence in Education, an organization that calls public schools places of “social depravity” and “spiritual slaughter.”

And what in the world is the point of putting a right-wing evangelical minister on a social studies panel?

The Peter Marshall Ministries Web site includes Marshall’s commentaries sharply attacking Muslims, characterizing the Obama administration as “wicked,” and calling on Christian parents to reject public education for their children.

Marshall has also attacked Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. In his call for a spiritual revival in America last year, he called traditional mainline Protestantism an “institutionally fossilized, Bible-rejecting shell of Christianity.”

Says TFN’s Kathy Miller:

“It’s absurd to suggest that Texas universities don’t have accomplished scholars in the field who are more qualified than ideologues who share a narrow political agenda. What’s next? Rush Limbaugh on the ‘expert’ panel? It’s clear now that just appointing a new chairman won’t end this board’s outrageous efforts to politicize the education of our schoolchildren. It’s time for the Legislature to make sweeping changes to the board and its control over what our kids learn in public schools.”

“With Don McLeroy’s confirmation hanging in the balance in the Senate and lawmakers considering 15 bills that would strip the state board of its authority, these board members continue trying to push extremist politics into Texas classrooms. It’s as if they’re daring the Legislature to call them on it.”

http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/04...ocial-studies/

Ha ha ha

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

UG, the fact that you can't agree that the US has employed imperialist policies historically is precisely how this imperialist behaviour is propagated.

That does not follow.

The United States in a sense began as the first anti-imperialist league, putting teeth in that league during the war 1775-1783.

While European powers vied to lay hold of tracts of land outside Europe, stimulated by the economic ideas that came to be called "mercantilism," we, having been on the short end of the mercantilist deal as colonies, adopted instead a free-trade capitalism and spent the entire nineteenth century developing it and its full ramifications.

At the end of the nineteenth century, and the height of many European global empires, we came late, halfheartedly, and frankly scantly, into imperialistic ambitions, taking over a few remnant shards of Spain's empire, and leaving at least one, Cuba, completely clear -- Cuba was running its own affairs soon enough after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Our relationship with Panama once it was detached, with our well-known connivance and support, from Colombia, was only quasi-imperial at its worst. More of a special relationship -- and as temporary, in the end, as our getting into the Philippines. Note that neither Panama nor the Philippines got plundered, used as cash cows, or as gold mines.

What I call our doings in those times is an aberration from our fundamental habit, which is now once again in force, and has been for several decades. Running an empire does not mesh with capitalism or with free trade. This is why we left those places to their own devices within decades.

Turning our attention to the case of Hawaii, let's see: were the Hawaiians somehow wrong to petition, in the due and proper form, for statehood, and to vote to join the Union? Sugarpop, one can always find malcontents, can one not? Now really, are they anything but?

TGRR, your disbelieving laughter does not constitute a successful rebuttal, nor does it even attempt a counter-argument. It is, however, a solid indication that you are not a businessman, and are quite ignorant of business. A knowledgeable business man would not have laughed. We're traders. That's business. Nothing happens in economy until somebody sells something. Turns out what's good for business is good for humanity at large, though it is always possible for businessmen to misunderstand where the good actually lies. We see that happen so often that we must expect it to crop up in almost every case, and be prepared in every case to sort the matter out.

To return to the top of the above paragraph, merely annoying me does not validate you. Do something better. And it's okay if you take your time and think it out.