American Imperialism

The A-Bombs sure seems to be a prime place to discuss the use of atomic bombs in World War II.Adminnemooseus

---

It`s important to remember there were a few backfires along the way. Noteble among them is Iran, which has become a nation that oposes USA`s intetrests only after US medleying with their internal afairs.

True, Iran is a good example. Afghanistan, Chile, Argentina, Panama, Cuba and Vietnam might also fall into that category.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure. The problem is that a lot of people dye everytime the lines shift due to the actions of an emperial power. And a lot of resources shift hands as well. Do you mean to imply that the right of propriety shouldn`t be considered sacred?

quote:

---

Would you consider the very existence of Panama as an act of Imperialism?

---

Panama is a pretty clear case of imperialism IMHO. Don't like the deal for a canal zone from the Columbian government, no problem, forment a revolution in the appropriate province, create Panama, and then if they don't like the terms of the deal, threaten them with witholding support and leaving them to the tender mercies of the Columbians they just revolted against.

quote:

---

Was there some particular reason that you excluded Diem from your list of CIA manipulated government leaders? He was chosen and installed by the US, supported by the US, and overthrown with the financial and political support of the US.

---

No reason other than to expedite the post by copying the list from the Misinformation website (after giving due credit of course), it was not intended to be comprehensive. I read from a Jack Anderson column back in the 70s that the Kennedy Administration was implicated in the assasination of some 20,000 individuals. That may have been a wild overstatement but the evidence is clear it included Diem, Lumumba, and several attempts on Castro, among others.

It would seem to me that either everything is sacred or nothing is sacred.I assume you meant property rights......propriety rights are hard to come by, though Faith is working on it.If property rights are sacred, then there is nothing that trumps them? Not even life? Does the rich man have the right to hoard his grain in times of famine until thousands die and prices triple? Is that sacred?As a matter of personal philosphy, I would say that individual property rights are not sacred because they are not absolute but rather belong to that category of rights that are socially and culturally negotiated. They are trumped in practice often, sometime properly, sometimes not.I think a society of absolute property rights would be terrifying.

The whole concept of imperialism comes down to property and who controls it.Anyone who thinks the US government has not been explicitly involved with contolling rights of access to raw materials and exploitation of foreign resources by american companies is not paying attention. Indeed. It's the republican ideal though, eh? Every piece of private property a petty dictatorship run by the owner, who can do whatever {he\she} likes on it, with it, to it.What about one with no property rights?There have been many societies without individual property rights, but not any I can think of without {group} property rights, except perhaps that the {Romany\Gypsy} may come close.What distinguishes a refuge from other people eh?Certainly the "communist" governments had property rights - everything was owned by the "state" - and no different in practice than an absolute dictatorship.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Imperialism as I'm using the term defines the aim of conquering territory. That's what Empires were, expansion into and control over foreign territory.

---

Given this definition, are you now saying that the West has, indeed, been imperialistic in the past?

Why don't you read the whole thread for a change? That question has already been answered.

If we limit this to only American Conquest, which means the initial conquest of the original colonies are considered as not an American Action, we find:Florida was taken by conquest from the Spanish who had taken it by conquest from the indians.Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi and Alabama were simply taken by conquest directly.We purchased Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas. Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming from the French who had taken the area by conquest.We took Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, California and New Mexico from the Spanish who in turn had taken the areas by conquest.We took Washington and Oregon by conquest.We purchased Alaska from the Russians who had taken possesion by conquest and fiat.We took Hawaii by conquest.We took Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Midway, Wake, Johnston, Baker, Howard and Jarvis Islands, Kingman and Palmyra Atolls and Navassa Island by conquest.We created the Nation of Panama solely so it could then lease us the Canal Zone.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Why don't you read the whole thread for a change? That question has already been answered.

---

In which post?

Message 5

And that does not include any of the manipulation of foreign affairs to topple unfriendly governments and install "friendly" ones if not puppets (even if this means installing dictators in place of elected governments), such as what is going on most recently in afghanistan and iraq.And people wonder why non-americans (and some americans) are upset.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Wow, so you base your entire world view on some anecdotal experiences at berkeley in the 60s that is seems you didn't fully understand at the time or now.That's really sad. I'll pray for you.

It seems to me that, like any question concerning rights, we have to ask the question, who are these rights supposed to belong to? When people say that property rights are sacred I am inclined to agree with them, to the extent that those rights are extended to everybody. For example, a homeless person might be said to have a "sacred" right to some property - for example a house to live in. I'm happy with that idea.Unfortunately when most people talk about property rights they only really mean to refer to the rights of those who ALREADY own property. What about the property rights of people who own nothing? What about their right to own property and have a home to call their own, and decent clothes and decent food to eat?To me, this is what makes the idea of property rights a little suspect - because it is a right that is discussed by its proponents as though it is universal, but in reality they only mean it as a right to be enjoyed by the moneyed classes.Mick