America

[Calrid]

Dude, you must prefer philosophizing on a belly full of crank. I can't fathom another explanation for the sheer length of your responses.

I used to do that a lot, now realise that if you start rambling too much, no one reads it anyway. I tend to save a long post for the OP, it has more chance of being read.

Also, though NO state in the union can succeed...

Now that is just a bit harsh though.

[lizbethrose]

CN, Pezer is correct--you are very funny!

Actually, though, the US has divested itself of most of its territories, giving them back to their inhabitants. Puerto Rico and the No. Marianna's Islands are exceptions--as are American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. All of these are dependent territories. Guantanamo is under perpetual lease from Cuba. Any or all of the US dependencies could relinquish US sovereignty if they wanted to, but they rely on trade agreements with the US to survive. I know Guam is nothing more that a big military base that's losing that status because of the cut-back in defense spending--Hah! The military is being moved into the No. Marianna's--at least for now. Spread the wealth?

Puerto Rico could become a state--if it wanted to. It doesn't. Why should it?

Pezer, you mentioned United Fruit Company--at least, I think it was you--somewhere, sometime. The United Fruit Company was a despicable example of how the US tried to 'take over' countries back at the turn of the 19-20th century. It's an example of the self-serving, American entrepreneurship of the time that did nothing for the 'Banana Republics' of Honduras or Guatemala. It still exists, under different names--but it still exploits natives. I think it's now called Chiquita Banana Foods.

Dole Foods did the same in Hawaii with pineapples.

[Stoic Guardian]

America wasn't taking over.

Those were private businesses that ended of being attacked by the locals (for good reason) and they called on the U.S. to help them protect their assets (and their asses as well) and eventually they did (though not as recklessly as some anti-government/military would like you to believe).

Hell you can just look up Smedly Butler and learn all about those.

[FilmSnob]

America wasn't taking over.

Those were private businesses that ended of being attacked by the locals (for good reason) and they called on the U.S. to help them protect their assets (and their asses as well) and eventually they did (though not as recklessly as some anti-government/military would like you to believe).

Agreed. But that is just the corporate side of the story. On the political side, the CIA was active in the toppling of democratic governments and the instating of brutal, military regimes. Sometimes to protect the interests of corporations and sometimes to solidify control over their slice of the post WW2 pie.

In those days, democracy was just as likely to lead to communism than democratic socialism or even right wing-ism. More likely, actually, which is why so many got toppled in favour of mass homicidal totalitarian autocrats who would play ball with the US.

Here is a fine example.

If you are an imperialist, you should see those as the US's first forays into imperialism: sloppy but effective. Oh, yeah, and massively homicidal.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Agreed. But that is just the corporate side of the story. On the political side, the CIA was active in the toppling of democratic governments and the instating of brutal, military regimes. Sometimes to protect the interests of corporations and sometimes to solidify control over their slice of the post WW2 pie.

In those days, democracy was just as likely to lead to communism than democratic socialism or even right wing-ism. More likely, actually, which is why so many got toppled in favour of mass homicidal totalitarian autocrats who would play ball with the US.

Agreed, we did that, and Vietnam, because of the Soviet's Unions announced intention to someday conquer the US- the US and Russia were not natural enemies, historically allies in fact- but because of marxism, we suddenly got put on enemy number one listing from day one. It was the first system we ever confronted internationally that actually had a chance at actually eliminating and then enslaving us since the War of 1812. We were having nothing to do with that shit, it's why outside of Machiavellian alliances with the soviets and a few month attempt at a post WW2 alliance with Stalin that Stalin wasn't having shit with that decided we were gong to do everything we could to topple the fuckers who sought our own end. Soviets reacted similarly, though we didn't seek their enslavement, as evidence the modern world, Kremlin free of a American Flag. Wouldn't be the same the other way around, there would be a red banner on the white house right now if we had a soviet perestroika and collapsed. They never would of stopped funding guerilla groups to hunt down our best educated and experience, expropriating our wealth for whatever absurd project they had in mind, and being a general bullshit fascist nuisance. I say fuck you comrade, seen 'Red Dawn' too many times, and know I will hunt all you fuckers down and will kill you all.


Sick part is we had nothing to do with Marxism. Marx even wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln, and he replied in return..... Marx had a extensive collection of Civil War writings and commentaries on the US. We wanted nothing to do with that silly shit. South America got used, Che Guevera got used, by the Soviets as a base to attack the US. US never gave a honest fuck what happened in South America beyond the Monroe doctrine and making sure our own citizens and corporations were not getting fucked over- but EVERY other country does that. Soviets helped engineered that into a history of imperialism when a fruit company conquered a continent and a a half!

It's easier to deal with 10 ruthless dictators who are self interested than 10 states under a nuclear armed communist international seeking the annihilation of democracy. South America voted to be loss when it began to side with the soviets, completely their leader's own doing. You can't blame ignorance, as Latin America has a western heritage and access to political works just as the US and Soviet Union did. They could of taken a neutral or independent route. Few did. What happened was inevitable. Not only was it inevitable, but it's likely to happen again and again and again as ideology morphs through the ages, even if America is not a actor in it, or is as much a victim as a future banana republic itself someday down the road. It comes from laudable and incredulous fools who have no mutual loyalty or self respect to say no and do the right thing for themselves with a eye to the greater international community and the consequences of their actions. There is a very good reason why latin america is the second most backwards region on the planet, right after the congo and sub-sahara africa (sri lanka has since got it's act together in 2009, so your promoted to no. 2 position UnderMexicans), it's because your undable to think for yourselves, unwilling to do the right thing. You don't start businesses unless it's product is moved by a cartel, you don't work unless some variant of marxist ideology is inserted as a mark of retarding tension, you won't stop meddling in your neighbor's affairs, laying claim to lands or support for movements because you can't legitimize the right of your own powerbase and need a external antagonism to make you sound sane. There shouldn't even be countries in south america other than the division perhaps between the old brazilian empire and the spanish one. It's all silly nonsense. South America takes philosophical hand-me-downs from other half ass philosophers from countries that have sense rejected them, and critique them to no end. Your trapped in a thermadorian reaction looking for a sane beginning, and can't find it, cause it was never there. It NEVER made sense, there was no Golden Age, just beaner diarrhea and oppression under a hot, unforgiving sun. And you blame us, the US, because the Soviets blamed us. But their dead now. But you don't have the honesty to look to the real culprits. Yourselves. Every other industrialized region on the planet had to eventually..... why should it be different in South America?

South America danced with the Marxist devil and lost, now it's trapped in it's tunnels of socialist despair, running around and chasing one another like a few too many college frat guys put into a room with too few beds, not knowing the way out of this maze save by the very means that entrapped them there. Even your own country Pezer invited a foreign occupation army from outside our hemisphere into your country out of a fear of a invasion that was never coming, once that if did come the Russians of today never would seriously care to fight beyond dropping a few cargos of small arms out of the back of their planes on the final flight back home. South America is a joke. But you guys can totally slide underneath the radar by pointing out how fucked up the Congo and Niger is. Not too bad being in second place, right? Means your not as fucked up as you could be, and must therefor be doing something right. So I give the Undermexicans that.

[FilmSnob]

Great analysis, that is basically it. And I myself often use the "at least we're not Africa" line, but it's very missleading. We are the descendants of Europeans, Africans (the ones in the shit) are not.

We are basically the shittiest Europeans at this point. But most of us don't care, because we live in a place where food always grows on trees and the weather is always perfect. Y'all had to become hardasses or die. Anyway, I am liking these northern lands... Maybe I'll Simón Bolívar them some day!

Incidently, Bolívar was also a Free Mason, as well as Miranda and all the big wigs of the rebellion. As well as your (very cornily named) forefathers.

I don't blame the US government for what they did back in the day, it is true that it was either but rape south and central America or get but raped by the soviets. I do blame them for being pussies about the truth. And I blame the citizens for thinking that they are part of the US government.

[statiktech]

Agreed. But that is just the corporate side of the story. On the political side, the CIA was active in the toppling of democratic governments and the instating of brutal, military regimes. Sometimes to protect the interests of corporations and sometimes to solidify control over their slice of the post WW2 pie.

On the political side, the CIA has always had its nose in all kinds of sinister shit, all around the world. We aren't talking a 'lesser of evils' approach here either -- as in resorting to questionable tactics to prevent some larger threat. I'm talking about scouting resources and political/military systems around the world in the interest of buying them off as one might a business partner, or threatening them into submission. If that didn't work, we'd... well, take the shit.

Crack was introduced to the United States by its own government -- specifically by the CIA, down to law enforcement, then onto the streets. The CIA was involved in some "secret" conflict in Nicaragua over natural resources. To avoid any direct link between the U.S. and the war, the CIA enlisted native contras to fight on their behalf [rather than send our own military]. In order to fund the war, they'd essentially give the contras weaponry, training, etc. in exchange for mass amounts of cocaine. They'd bring the coke shipments back and use law enforcement to distribute the shit into the streets. It wasn't as easy as they thought it might be because even desperate people know better than to fuck with crooked cops. So, they find a guy in California, who is already buying off law enforcement and managing to move serious weight, to use as the point man. The CIA would fly in the shit, law enforcement would pick it up, then get it to Freeway Ricky Ross, who was the drug dealer in the U.S. at the time. Law enforcement even showed him how to rock it up and sell as a different, more modern product; something to keep the money moving at a faster pace. Ricky Ross literally had dope houses set up all throughout the West coast - known by lower law enforcement, but protected by CIA - that he'd use to sell the coke\crack out of like a McDonald's drive through. It went on for years, Rick got unfathomably rich and powerful, and his "dealing" escalated to become a franchise. When Ricky Ross' operation started becoming increasingly autonomous, the police popped him. He's still in prison now. And, thanks to him, the campaign he was unknowingly funding in Nicaragua was successful. The U.S. drug czar at the time was questioned specifically about government involvement in the crack epidemic in a public forum shortly afterward, based on information coming out of the streets. He denied it, of course, and refused to answer any other questions. 10 or so years later, a new president, new administration, new drug czar, etc. and they suddenly find a conscience. They admit, in full, everything that had been done regarding the secretive war effort, drug trafficking, government and law enforcement involvement, Ricky Ross' setup, etc. What did it change? Absolutely nothing. Not. One. Thing.

If you are an imperialist, you should see those as the US's first forays into imperialism: sloppy but effective. Oh, yeah, and massively homicidal.

Almost as homicidal as it is greed-fueled. Wars are little more than business opportunities to this country anymore.

I blame the citizens for thinking the U.S. government stood for, or was remotely a part of, 'the people.'

[Stoic Guardian]

If you are an imperialist, you should see those as the US's first forays into imperialism: sloppy but effective. Oh, yeah, and massively homicidal.

It's not Imperialism , it's capitalistic meddling.

Imperialism is honest, it may not always be nice and it may be harsh at times. But imperialism doesn't sneak around like that.

People just like to shout the word imperialism on any interventionist policy they don't like, just like the way they shout Fascism at every domestic policy they don't like.

[lizbethrose]

Gives a shrill whistle--I'm talking about the start of the UFC back in the 1800's not about the Eisenhower 'preserve America from Marxism' era of the 1950's.

from Wiki:

In 1871, U.S. railroad entrepreneur Henry Meiggs signed a contract with the government of Costa Rica to build a railroad connecting the capital city of San José to the port of Limón in the Caribbean. Meiggs was assisted in the project by his young nephew Minor C. Keith, who took over Meiggs's business concerns in Costa Rica after Meiggs's death in 1877. Because he was looking for cheap food to give to his workers, Keith began planting bananas along the train route in 1873. Once the railroad was complete, he decided to transport bananas to his native country. It did not take him too long to see the success of his idea, in part by paying his workers extremely low wages. The workers left when exposed to very low quality conditions. This was not exposed until years later.

It's been suggested that this was part of America's neo-colonialism--i.e., take-over of Central American land. It certainly led to an American corp. becoming the largest banana plantation in Central America.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

First Foreign War Americans were involved in was the British Invasion of Bogota.... shit didn't work out too well for us I am afraid. British thought we were stupid, ignorant cowards, and kept us in the rear. We proved them right, and decided upon a new rear, and went to valiantly hold it while the battle went on. We cheered the British forward to the walls, and rallied them back as they fled back towards us. We had refreshments and everything ready for them.

We were not used very often after that.

[Stoic Guardian]

I don't support everything our nations done but Economic explotation headed by the private sector and then consented to by the U.S. government doesn't count as Colonialism or Imperialism.

Hell if we truly were imperialistic back in those days we could of just marched through the yucatan pennisula through those bannana Republics Etc.

We were in a posistion after the Mexican-American(see the distinction between the two names) War to Take control of Mexico. The main reason they didn't was because it would have given to much power to the southern states.

[FilmSnob]

I don't support everything our nations done but Economic explotation headed by the private sector and then consented to by the U.S. government doesn't count as Colonialism or Imperialism.

Hell if we truly were imperialistic back in those days we could of just marched through the yucatan pennisula through those bannana Republics Etc.

We were in a posistion after the Mexican-American(see the distinction between the two names) War to Take control of Mexico. The main reason they didn't was because it would have given to much power to the southern states.

Didn't you?

I guess you just named half of the geographic locations in your country in Spanish for the phonetic effect!

[Stoic Guardian]

Didn't you?

I guess you just named half of the geographic locations in your country in Spanish for the phonetic effect!

Yeah, but they didn't take it all over.

[FilmSnob]

[quote="Pezer]

Didn't you?

I guess you just named half of the geographic locations in your country in Spanish for the phonetic effect![/quote]

Yeah, but they didn't take it all over.[/quote]

I get your point, but it is a little shakey to claim self-restraint over the allocation of how much Mexico was be expropriated.

It would be kind of like a briton saying "Imperialistic?! But we gave India back, didn't we?"

[Stoic Guardian]

I get your point, but it is a little shakey to claim self-restraint over the allocation of how much Mexico was be expropriated.

It would be kind of like a briton saying "Imperialistic?! But we gave India back, didn't we?"

That's something I've been planning on looking into The British Raj.

I like Rudyard Kipling and feel like giving the people on the school board a peace of my mind for teaching student that "The White mans Burden" was supposed to be taken literally, when in truth it's tounge in cheek.

Damn political correctness.

[Calrid]

I get your point, but it is a little shakey to claim self-restraint over the allocation of how much Mexico was be expropriated.

It would be kind of like a briton saying "Imperialistic?! But we gave India back, didn't we?"

That's something I've been planning on looking into The British Raj.

I like Rudyard Kipling and feel like giving the people on the school board a peace of my mind for teaching student that "The White mans Burden" was supposed to be taken literally, when in truth it's tounge in cheek.

Damn political correctness.

The English were masters of being assholes to everyone, and yet not suffering a reputation of an imperialist Slavemaster so much. Impressive I guess considering our nations size, largest empire in history. Although as a Brit you do feel ashamed by the actual history, you can at least take comfort in the fact everyone was doing it. American imperialism has to be way more subtle than it is to get away with what is basically "blue blooded" murder.

[Stoic Guardian]

Do you think the British Empire was really all that bad?

[lizbethrose]

I don't think America thought of itself as Imperialistic or colonialist--in the 19th century, they were good ol' capitalist entrepreneurs who subjugated and exploited the native peoples of Central America in order to make an 'honest dollar.' It was kind of an off-shoot of manifest destiny and no one really cared one way or another in the US--just keep those bananas and pineapples flowing.

[lizbethrose]

Do you thinkthe British Empire was really all that bad?

Look what it did to the Australian Maori's who still have to fight for rights in their own land.

[Stoic Guardian]

What consitutes as having the right to land?

Having your ancestors live there?

Don't you beleive in the rights of the conquerers?

[FilmSnob]

What consitutes as having the right to land?

Having your ancestors live there?

Don't you beleive in the rights of the conquerers?

What is your stance on the rights of the Germans to live in and administer Poland?

[Stoic Guardian]

What is your stance on the rights of the Germans to live in and administer Poland?

I don't know, Poland seems to do reasonably good seeing as how the German reich, the Austrian Empire and the Russians had constantly been trying to take control of Poland for centuries.

As the Germans(and the Russians) were unable to keep control of the Land they "conquered" Id say neither have a right to rule it.

[FilmSnob]

As the Germans(and the Russians) were unable to keep control of the Land they "conquered" Id say neither have a right to rule it.

Damn... Good answer.

[Calrid]

Do you think the British Empire was really all that bad?

Yes but history is written by the victors and of course there was no 24 hour media then.

[Stoic Guardian]

I haven't researched into it, so I don't have much of an opnion on it.

I suppose I should seeing as how it was the most recent Empire.