Inflammatory Comments Inside

All of those deaths are somehow America's fault, or the fault of big corporate interests. Or the free market.

clearly

First, I would wager that, while it may not be news that the US looks out for its interests, it is news to many the means by which we do so.

Second, the national interest, as you describe it, is not the interest of the general population, but thoe who control the power structure. Ask Joe six-pack if he has any desire to exploit the third world. You'd have to be pathological to concede that. Personally I'm for democracy, and I would prefer to be consulted on issues of aggression in foreign nations on my behalf. We need to clearly demarcate the difference between american policy makers and the american public.

Finally, while it's true that so-called communist regimes have perpetrated their fair share of atrocities, that is no excuse. In fact, it lends ever greater support to the idea that government elites, communist or capitalist, will do whaever is necessary to maintain control. If you are suggesting that America, in combating the spread of communism, did not perpetrate some of the most viscious and vile acts of the century, then again I must respectfully disagree. Either way, it is irrelevant whether the indigenous pseudo-communist regimes in the listed countries commited atrocities, as American intervention in those countries was not motivated by righteous indignation but global economics.

You asked what our policy has been for the 20th century -- it would be hard to have an intelligent discussion about that without noting our struggle against communism.

As for "their fair share" of atrocities, I think you would be *very* hard pressed to attempt to prove that the US did anything at even remotely the level of those democides and oppressions.

I'd also note that the US is the world's largest giver of foreign aid governmentally speaking, and also the world's largest giver of private donations.

No nation is perfect, and the US is far from it -- but I do believe we've done more good for this world (intentionally or not) in the last century than any other nation I can name.

If you can think of a country that has done more for the world in the last century, I'd seriously love to hear it.

Another interesting side note is the case of Cambodia's Kmher Rouge, identified by the author of the above study as the deadliest regime, percentage-wise.

What the author neglects to detail is that Pol Pot's rise to power was the direct result of continued US agression in the region following the Vietnam war. American troops carried continual carpet-bombing raids from 1969-1973, successfully destroying the country side and plunging the population into abject poverty. The Cambodian leader Prince Sihanouk would not kowtow to American foregin policy and was deposed in a bloody coup. Guess who America supported as a successor? Yep, Pol Pot. The combination of what was initially populist support for his psuedo-communist public policy and American approval allowed Pol Pot to institute his terrible reign. In fact, he was supported for many years with military and economic aid before being denounced as a mass-murderer.

Similar cases can be made for the cited cases of Nicaragua and many others on that list.

Absolutely, dgs212. The Somoza regime in Nicaragua killed on the order of 10 times as many Nicaraguans as the partially Communist Sandinistas did.
And don't forget Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Argentina, etc., etc.
Not to mention our former "good buddy" Saddam. Although that wasn't an anti-Communist stance, but anti-Iran.
In all the shock and horror over Saddam's torture chambers, don't forget that the US government has for years trained torturers at the School of the Americas.
To go off on a slight tangent, here's a little quiz for you: What nation currently has the largest percentage of its population in prison?
Answer: the USA, Land of the "Free."

But where is that aid going? This is a crritical question. Primarily, aid goes to the Contras, the Israels, the Suhartos, the Saudis, the Bin ladens of the world. it is not enough to give aid. The aid must be given responsibly.

As far as countries tht have done more for the world, you can have your pick. No country's hands are spotless, granted. But most do not demand the high cost America imposes for its "liberation."

Also, you mentioned America as being relatively benign compared to communist nations. First of all, you cannot compare the actions of america alone with those of two dozen other countries collectively. Further, Phillipino casualties alone at the hands of American soldiers between 1899 and 1902 (3 years!) are conservatively estimated at 20,000 military and 300,000 civillians. Extrapolate that to the hundred+ armed conflicts perpetrated either directly by US troops or inderictly through US led or supported natives in the past hundred years, at home and abroad, and I think a pretty clear picture of America's aggression shines through.

Instead of continuing on your "bash the US" rant, how about answering the question with a specific country that you feel has done more for the world in the past century?

I seriously can't think of any; the only thing that comes close is countries that sit quietly inside their borders and do absolutely nothing -- but that isn't exactly helping the world, that's merely isolating yourself from it.

Moki, I respect you as a person (and especially as a programmer). I do think the US has done a lot of good in the world, but we have also done a lot of evil. And now it looks like we are prepared to do a great deal more evil, which saddens me.
I will argue that we haven't done nearly as much good as we think we have, though. The last time we had a major foreign-aid program that actually improved the world was the Marshall Plan right after World War II. In recent years, the amount of foreign aid in the US budget has been shrinking drastically, because we have no more "anti-Communist" regimes to prop up.
If we're such a force for good in the world, why the hell have we done absolutely nothing about the human tragedy in the Congo? Civil war and its concomitant starvation and disease have killed 3.3 million people there in the past decade, and the US has done nothing!
Why not? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because they're black and poor?

How does one shun the beneficiaries of affirmative action? How does one even identify them?
If you don't wish to be considered a racist, don't make statements that can only be interpreted as racist.

This is the unfortunate situation; if we do anything (such as liberate Iraq) people protest, and rail against the US for "interventionism" and "invading a sovereign nation".

Yet if we don't do something, they cry "Where were you? Why are you letting this happen?"

You can't have it both ways folks.

You could also just as easily argue "Where is the UN? Why are they letting what is going on in the Congo and Rwanda continue?"

Because they're black and poor?

I agree that what happened in the Phillipines over a century ago was utterly wrong. However, you cannot "extrapolate" that to confirm your view of "America's aggression"

With our military in the state it is in right now, we could invade, occupy, and dominate literally any country on the planet. We're not doing that.

I'd also caution you to note that many of the wars we've fought in were to stem the red tide of communism. It's easy to argue now, with the fall of the USSR, that it was pointless and bloody, but I personally believe that fighting those bloody wars caused the world to end up better than it would have had the kind of communism in the USSR, China, and other countries spread. Also keep the context in mind; the Cuban missile crisis is what fueled America's very real fears of communism coming to our shores.

I for one am glad we don't have a nation like DPRK on our doorstep to contend with.

Speaking of that, many of the wars we have fought were indeed good things. World War I. World War II. The Korean War (South Koreans of the right age group still thank us eternally), and ultimately, the demies of the USSR. Hell, it can be argued that we're even bringing China around (slowly), not through force, but through capitalism.

A good friend of mine is from China, and travels there on business on a regular basis; she says that the larger cities in China are quite capitalistic, and not that different from the US (if you stay out of the government's way).

In short, I believe that what we were fighting against, if spread, would have been far worse for America, and the world in general had we not fought it. Problem is, you're arguing against what did happen, and not what could have happened. I wonder if the kind of governments in China, USSR, and DPRK did spread, if you'd even be able to voice your opinion on the matter?

I was pointing out that we seem to pick and choose our causes. We only "do good" when our leaders think it will be to our (or rather, their) benefit.
And I agree that the UN should take action.

Man, that sums up 97% of the men who wear suits in this world. 99.9% of the women.

Just the one bit...talk to anyone who's over 40. Ask them, when they were growing up, how much longer the oil was supposed to last. According to what the experts in the 70's were saying, it should all be gone by now. But it's not. The truth is, we don't really know how much oil is left. No one does. Just finding it at all is a sort of scientific black art, and predicting how much is left with as little knowledge as we have is pretty much a guessing game. So don't come in here spouting about how things are "a reality." We just don't know.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't support different energy sources. If you've got a water-powered car I'm there. But I don't presume to make statements of fact in the absence of evidence.

--Josh

dodged the question, homie.

name a country.

we'll wait.

The question was:

Instead of continuing on your "bash the US" rant, how about answering the question with a specific country that you feel has done more for the world in the past century?

and you didn't come within a hundred miles of answering it.

I don't really have time to delineate the entire course of US foreign policy over the past century, I will, however, point out the points you are missing.

1. One can, in fact, "extrapolate" what happened in the Phillipines at the turn of the century, because it was not an isolated incident. This is my main point. It's hard to turn off that voice that says America is good because it's what we're taught from the day we're born, unless we happen to be born elsewhere. It's easier to name countries we haven't intervened in. The list is truly staggering. Some select few:

Hawaii
Cuba
Samoa
Phillipines
China
Phillipines (again)
Panama
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Mexico
Columbia
Guatemala
Mexico (again)
Mexico (yet again)

The scary thing about this list is that it only goes up to 1917, a good deal prior to the mounting communist hysteria (i could go on if you like). For stuff after world war 2, the list looks like this:

WORLD WAR II 1941-45
Fought Axis forces for three years; first nuclear war, against Japan.

GREECE 1947-49
Supports and directs extreme right in civil war.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54
CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950
Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.

KOREAN WAR 1950-53
Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.

IRAN 1953
CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah.

GUATEMALA 1954
CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed.

LEBANON 1958
US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.

VIETNAM WAR 1960-75
Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed.

CUBA 1961
CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion.

LAOS 1962
Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.

PANAMA 1964
Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.

INDONESIA 1965
Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66
Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.

GUATEMALA 1966-67
Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.

CAMBODIA 1969-75
War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.

OMAN 1970
US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."

LAOS 1971-73
US directs South Vietnamese invasion.

CHILE 1973
CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed.

ANGOLA 1976-92
CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92
Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.

NICARAGUA 1981-90
US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines.

LEBANON 1982-84
Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.

HONDURAS 1983-89
Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.

GRENADA 1983-84
US troops topple pro-Cuban government.

LIBYA 1986
Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links.

BOLIVIA 1986
Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.

IRAN 1987-88
Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989
Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo.

PHILIPPINES 1989
Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.

PANAMA 1989-90
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed.

GULF WAR 1990-
Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.

SOMALIA 1992-94
US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94
US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95
Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.

HAITI 1994-96
Troops restore elected leftist president to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995
American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.

SUDAN 1998
Pharmaceutical factory with terrorist links bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

AFGHANISTAN 1998
Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999
US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo.

COLOMBIA 2000
Special Forces train anti-narcotics and anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.

MACEDONIA 2001
US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.

AFGHANISTAN 2001
In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces attempt ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden.

The point being, America is the number 1 modern aggressor.

Also, don't forget about the internal strife and persecuted citizens (blacks, the poor, socialists, women, immigrants, homosexuals, labor strikers, etc.) The groups were treated none too good, either.


2. We are, in fact, invading other countries, flexing our military muscle. Remember Iraq, i.e. yesterday?


3. If the spread of Soviet style totalitarian state-communism, then why the aggression against vietnam? nicaragua? cuba? guatemala? cambodia? the list goes on and on. These were peasant countries, whose only crimes were organizing poor citizens into viable independent communities in the face of US hegemony. Now, from the point of view of Industry, they represent catastrophe.

4. I'm not sure where you got your information, but the Cuban missle crisis was not the beginning of communist hysteria. Far from it. It may have been its peak, but we were terrified of communists as early as the 20s. The cuban missle crisis is interesting, though, because it represents the apogee of the general populace's ignorance regrding american aggression. What was the story there? Russia created a communist state in cuba, gave it nuclear missles, and told them to aim them at the US. Well, there are several things wrong with that official story. First of all, Russia had no hand in cuba until America cut of foreign aid. Why did America cut off aid to cuba. Well, after the grass roots populist movement there overthrew the us installed dictator Batista, Castro moved to set up a nationwide system of education, housing, and land distribution to landless peasants. The government there confiscated over a million acres of land from three american companies. America cut off aid, refusing to purchase sugar produced there. Russia picked up the slack. This is where americ gets worried. The cia funded and trained a thousand exiles to institute a regime change. Unfortunately, castro was immensely popular and the invading forces were thoroughly routed. Keep in mind that this all flies in the face ofTruman's "rule of law" a treaty signed by the US stipulating that "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state." Also at this time there was a federal operation called COINTELPRO (counter intelligence program) which, aside from lovely domestic business involving the murder of a black panther leader organized by the FBI, is a stunning example of US Terrorism. They bombed hospitals. They bombed factories. they killed popular leaders. All in cuba, all unreported at the time. The declassified record is shocking. You can read a copy many places online if you're interested. etc. etc. This is getting long...I better stop here on cuba, although I highly suggest reading more baout cuba for a good general picture of american involvement outside its own borders in the post-war era.


5. Lastly, I urge you to be more skeptical of american governmental practices. You can learn a lot, but you have to ask the right questions.


6. One more thing. I don't hate america. Americans can be pretty darn goodwilled, charitable, friendly people. Powerfull americans, however, are a whole other story. Why would you stand up and defend these people who don't care about you? You owe them nothing.

Shoot, i forgot to name a country that's done more for the world than the US.

Unfortunately, a state, like a corporation, is not a moral entity. It can't be altruistic. No state has done more for the world than the US because no state has the capacity to do for the world. Do you want specific groups of impassioned caring citizens who do for others more than the US does? Italian nuns on missions in africs. Doctors without borders. Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch. C.A..R.E. Notice that none of these groups are state-run.

"6. One more thing. I don't hate america. Americans can be pretty darn goodwilled, charitable, friendly people. Powerfull americans, however, are a whole other story. Why would you stand up and defend these people who don't care about you? You owe them nothing."


"Powerful Americans"?

um. Here in America, anybody can become "powerful" if they desire.

If money is power, that is.

and what else is it?

There is no elite ruling-class in America - just average Americans that sought their dreams and ambitions.

You don't have to agree with them and you don't have to give them "power". You don't have to do anything at all. Other people will do it for you. While you complain about the 'powerful' folks holding you back. limiting your success.