Political Crossfire Forums

[Meistro1]

American Foreign Policy

Theodore Rosevelt was known to quote the West African proverb "walk softly and carry a big stick" for both his dealings with treacherous party bosses as well as his foreign politics and it is a maxim worth remembering. The concept of behaving yourself (as a country) in your dealings with other nations in a manner that is most likely to avoid confrontation while maintaing the ability to defend yourself seems like an ideal method of behaviour.

Over the last fifty years this advice has been ignored time and again by your leaders. Decades of seemingly endless unprovoked and unjustified military attacks on foreign nations can hardly be categorized as 'walking softly'. The American involvement and funding of Contras in Nicaragua and the covert sale of arms to both Iraq and Iran during the Iraq - Iran conflict are blatant examples of an interventionist foreign policy. Not only are these actions reprehensible from a moral and humanitarian standpoint they lack any clear benefit for the American people. These are mistakes made by individuals within the organization that is the American government not the flaws of Americans themselves.

The citizens of the United States did not prop up countless petty dictators in South America. The citizens of the United States did not install Sadamn Hussien, Pol Pot, Jorge Videla and Augusto Pinochet but their leaders did and ultimately the people are responsible for what their elected leaders do. A foreign policy that promotes dictatorships, war and violence will only lead to further anti-American sentiment and violence. There is no excuse for a nation which loves freedom as you do to so openly embrace tyranny.

[LandOfHypocrisy]

Well, I'll respond. Because no one else has and I feel bad for you.

Continious unprovoked attacks? Are you talking about Radical Islam or the U.S.?

As for South and Central America, our involvement is not always a negative one. Including plenty of Economic bail-outs, and economic reform to countries like Bolivia that actually do something long term.

You see, people get this idea in the world that property shouldn't be respected. Or that because some one is in close proximity to a facility, that somehow they're entitled to take it over. (Like a multi-billion dollar oil drilling site.)

U.S. troops have rarely gone to wage war in South or Latin America. At most, we've sent advisors to train local people wanting to maintain order.

...And you can't blame us for supporting petty dictatorships either. Because it's the Carter doctrine of "hands-off" that has kept more chaos in Latin America than anything else.

...So no. Actually you're wrong.

[Saracen]

LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Well, I'll respond. Because no one else has and I feel bad for you.

Continious unprovoked attacks? Are you talking about Radical Islam or the U.S.?

I think he's talking about the U.S.

Quote: As for South and Central America, our involvement is not always a negative one. Including plenty of Economic bail-outs, and economic reform to countries like Bolivia that actually do something long term


I disagree, buddy.

Guatemala
- In 1954 The US organizes a military coup in Guatemala to remove the president, Jacobo Arbenz. The country had been democratic since 1944... Arevalo had permitted free expression, legalized unions and diverse political parties.
- The US claims it is preventing a USSR takeover by using communism scare tactics but in reality it is economics. Arbenz’s fatal mistake was expropriating unused land from the American United Fruit Company, and distributing it to landless peasants.
- Allen Dulles, at the time director of the CIA has personal interest in American United Fruit Company
- American companies benefit from cheap labor, lax safety laws and a helpful government. Arbenz was attempting to bring in unions and fair labor laws and distribute land to the poor. Coca-Cola also had bottling plants being affected
- After the coup and for the next 31 years repressive and dictoral governments would rule with the support of the US. Hundreds of thousands civilians would die in the hands of these governments by CIA trained death squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arbenz_Guzm%C3%A1n


Nicaragua
- After 46 years of US backed dictoral reign the Samosa are overthrown by it's people when President Carter refuses to continue backing this murderous ragim.
- The new government (Sandinistas) introduces a literacy campaign and health provisions for all citizens. Within a decade, the country's child mortality rate would fall from 128 to 62 per thousand births.
- President Reagan is elected and the CIA want's control back of Nicaragua so it attempts to assassinate Ortega. Orataga was elected in a nationally observed election that year. Orataga cuts ties with the US government after the failed assassination. Because of this Reagan starts a trade embargo on Nicaragua, mines its ports, destroys agricultural collectives and health clinics, and uses its influence in the World Bank to block previously agreed loans to the country.
-Reagan unable to get funding from legislature secretly agrees to funnel money from illegal arms sells to Iran for Contra in Nicaragua. Oliver North is used to set up Cocaine labs in Columbia to fund arms to Contra. Contra is a CIA trained squad that terrorisms Nicaragua civilians for 10 years. It kills over 50000 civilians and destroys businesses in attempt to destabilize the democratic elected government of Daniel Ortega
-For it's undercover action against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. The World Court orders the USA to pay reparations of $ 17,000 million which the USA refuses to abide by. The US vetoes a United Nations resolution calling on all governments to observe international law

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


Haiti
This is very similar to Guatemala
- Jean-Bertrand Aristide is the first democratic elected government in Haiti. Haiti has long been controlled by the US and 1 or 2 percent of the population control all the wealth. It is one of the poorest countries in the and provides America corporations with the cheapest labor.
- Jean-Bertrand Aristide attempts to bring in wage increases and public funded programs by taxing the corporations.
- The rich are angered by this and fund the x military to undermine and overthrow Aristide.
- Aristide finds a supporter in the most unusual place in Bill Clinton who threatens military action if Aristide is not returned.
- Aristide is returned to power and disbands the military.
- Heavely republican influenced CIA begins training x haiti military in Dominican Republic
- George W Bush takes over as president and the x Haiti military comes in and overthrows Aristide claiming the last election was rigged.
- Death squads kill any Aristide supporters and top political party leaders while US troops observe. The population uprises as Aristide was very popular.

Quote: You see, people get this idea in the world that property shouldn't be respected. Or that because some one is in close proximity to a facility, that somehow they're entitled to take it over. (Like a multi-billion dollar oil drilling site.

World property should be respected. The problem is that the U.S. govt. is also not respecting the rights of others to democratically elect nations.

Quote: U.S. troops have rarely gone to wage war in South or Latin America. At most, we've sent advisors to train local people wanting to maintain order

...or overthrow the anti-U.S. govt?

Quote: ...And you can't blame us for supporting petty dictatorships either. Because it's the Carter doctrine of "hands-off" that has kept more chaos in Latin America than anything else.

I really don't think so.

Quote: ...So no. Actually you're wrong.

It's perspective. I'll add mine:

The problem is that all these years of interventionism and usurping of leaders that were non-compliant to America's oligarchic rulers definitely made a lot of enemies more than it made a lot of friends. The American government is not intent on democracy more than it is intent on regime change, which just happens to be the new version of democracy these days.

The Greek leader they installed, Papadopoulos, back in 1967, and the Shah who was installed by the CIA in order to usurp the democratically elected Mossadegh, definitely hit the Greeks and Iranians home, and instilled them a deep-rooted hate for American foreign policy interests. That led to the Mullahcratizing of Iran.. And let's not forget Saddam's affiliation with the CIA, and the rise of Bin Laden, the support for dictatorial regimes like Mubarak and the Sauds. These regimes, through petrodollars and the such, oppressed their people. As long as the leaders of those countries were compliant to American standards, they were allies. If not, they were deemed dictators, no matter how benevolent they are. Corrupted politicians are now heading the MidEast, thanks to the interventionism that took decades and decades to foment.

That alone instilled hate and fear for the American government, and made the voice of radicals popular amongst the poor segments of the populations of these countries. These enemies were projected against the Americans to a degree that they don't hate them out of ignorance, but out of what they have done in the past. There's also the adamant support for Israel, free from condemnation and reparations, as well as the refusal to allow a legitimate Palestinian voice to negotiate over the past peace treaties. Then you have the Lebanese civil war, in which many Palestinians and Lebanese died under the fire of the Israeli and American navies. Sad turnout of events, really. All the blood and money that the Arabs lost over these years further fueled the fires of hatred towards the U.S. The placement of American military bases over the Middle East was another factor. Then you have the Iraq war, the Haiti government, the Nicaraguans and other Latin Americans, et al.

So, what exactly did such events lead to? One might say that the Americans were indeed up to their liberation efforts and the such.. However, it appears that their attempts were clearly not the case. Time and time again, the U.S. government has made itself a lot of enemies when it installed dictators and supported tyrannical regimes that were compliant to its standards. Now that we are seeing a rising left in the Latin Americas, the American government was quick to criticize their efforts and their rise to power.

Ok, now back to the hypocrisy of the Western governments. They have actually ousted the democratically elected Mossadegh, and yet they still support the dictatorial regime of Pakistan and other areas. They are also adamant supporters for Charles Taylor, an adamant Liberian war criminal and head of state.

So, after all these years of instigating foreign policy interventions, support for suppressive/oppressive regimes, and installing of military bases in the Gulf, which OBL regarded as occupation in the Middle East. What did these cycle of events in the Middle East lead to?

It lead to two planes smashing on the sides of two buildings in NYC, which was in itself a crime against humanity.

Afterwards, the American government was thrust into a farcical war against the Afghan and Iraqi governments (the Afghan war was more understandable). However, when the British plutocrats sent their troops to Iraq, they got the hit at 7-7-2005. So, is it really because of "freedoms" that the terrorists hate these governments? No, it's because of foreign policy and interventionism, all which were used to serve the interests of the American government and the American government alone. Now we're seeing oil ministers and corrupt politicians rising in Iraq, and a possible civil war. Indeed, this could threaten the future of the U.S., as such instilling of conflict will instigate more conflict towards it. The Middle East will forever remember the horrors of Abu Ghreib and the instilling of civil strife by the sponsorship of death squads and the firebombing of cities like Fallujah. The fire of hate towards the American government is indeed being fueled by the actions of the American government, and this would increase the risk of more attacks.

[EugenicHegemony]

Saracen wrote: LandOfHypocrisy wrote: Well, I'll respond. Because no one else has and I feel bad for you.

Continious unprovoked attacks? Are you talking about Radical Islam or the U.S.?

I think he's talking about the U.S.

Quote: As for South and Central America, our involvement is not always a negative one. Including plenty of Economic bail-outs, and economic reform to countries like Bolivia that actually do something long term


I disagree, buddy.

Guatemala
- In 1954 The US organizes a military coup in Guatemala to remove the president, Jacobo Arbenz. The country had been democratic since 1944... Arevalo had permitted free expression, legalized unions and diverse political parties.
- The US claims it is preventing a USSR takeover by using communism scare tactics but in reality it is economics. Arbenz’s fatal mistake was expropriating unused land from the American United Fruit Company, and distributing it to landless peasants.
- Allen Dulles, at the time director of the CIA has personal interest in American United Fruit Company
- American companies benefit from cheap labor, lax safety laws and a helpful government. Arbenz was attempting to bring in unions and fair labor laws and distribute land to the poor. Coca-Cola also had bottling plants being affected
- After the coup and for the next 31 years repressive and dictoral governments would rule with the support of the US. Hundreds of thousands civilians would die in the hands of these governments by CIA trained death squads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arbenz_Guzm%C3%A1n


Nicaragua
- After 46 years of US backed dictoral reign the Samosa are overthrown by it's people when President Carter refuses to continue backing this murderous ragim.
- The new government (Sandinistas) introduces a literacy campaign and health provisions for all citizens. Within a decade, the country's child mortality rate would fall from 128 to 62 per thousand births.
- President Reagan is elected and the CIA want's control back of Nicaragua so it attempts to assassinate Ortega. Orataga was elected in a nationally observed election that year. Orataga cuts ties with the US government after the failed assassination. Because of this Reagan starts a trade embargo on Nicaragua, mines its ports, destroys agricultural collectives and health clinics, and uses its influence in the World Bank to block previously agreed loans to the country.
-Reagan unable to get funding from legislature secretly agrees to funnel money from illegal arms sells to Iran for Contra in Nicaragua. Oliver North is used to set up Cocaine labs in Columbia to fund arms to Contra. Contra is a CIA trained squad that terrorisms Nicaragua civilians for 10 years. It kills over 50000 civilians and destroys businesses in attempt to destabilize the democratic elected government of Daniel Ortega
-For it's undercover action against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. The World Court orders the USA to pay reparations of $ 17,000 million which the USA refuses to abide by. The US vetoes a United Nations resolution calling on all governments to observe international law

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


Haiti
This is very similar to Guatemala
- Jean-Bertrand Aristide is the first democratic elected government in Haiti. Haiti has long been controlled by the US and 1 or 2 percent of the population control all the wealth. It is one of the poorest countries in the and provides America corporations with the cheapest labor.
- Jean-Bertrand Aristide attempts to bring in wage increases and public funded programs by taxing the corporations.
- The rich are angered by this and fund the x military to undermine and overthrow Aristide.
- Aristide finds a supporter in the most unusual place in Bill Clinton who threatens military action if Aristide is not returned.
- Aristide is returned to power and disbands the military.
- Heavely republican influenced CIA begins training x haiti military in Dominican Republic
- George W Bush takes over as president and the x Haiti military comes in and overthrows Aristide claiming the last election was rigged.
- Death squads kill any Aristide supporters and top political party leaders while US troops observe. The population uprises as Aristide was very popular.

Quote: You see, people get this idea in the world that property shouldn't be respected. Or that because some one is in close proximity to a facility, that somehow they're entitled to take it over. (Like a multi-billion dollar oil drilling site.

World property should be respected. The problem is that the U.S. govt. is also not respecting the rights of others to democratically elect nations.

Quote: U.S. troops have rarely gone to wage war in South or Latin America. At most, we've sent advisors to train local people wanting to maintain order

...or overthrow the anti-U.S. govt?

Quote: ...And you can't blame us for supporting petty dictatorships either. Because it's the Carter doctrine of "hands-off" that has kept more chaos in Latin America than anything else.

I really don't think so.

Quote: ...So no. Actually you're wrong.

It's perspective. I'll add mine:

The problem is that all these years of interventionism and usurping of leaders that were non-compliant to America's oligarchic rulers definitely made a lot of enemies more than it made a lot of friends. The American government is not intent on democracy more than it is intent on regime change, which just happens to be the new version of democracy these days.

The Greek leader they installed, Papadopoulos, back in 1967, and the Shah who was installed by the CIA in order to usurp the democratically elected Mossadegh, definitely hit the Greeks and Iranians home, and instilled them a deep-rooted hate for American foreign policy interests. That led to the Mullahcratizing of Iran.. And let's not forget Saddam's affiliation with the CIA, and the rise of Bin Laden, the support for dictatorial regimes like Mubarak and the Sauds. These regimes, through petrodollars and the such, oppressed their people. As long as the leaders of those countries were compliant to American standards, they were allies. If not, they were deemed dictators, no matter how benevolent they are. Corrupted politicians are now heading the MidEast, thanks to the interventionism that took decades and decades to foment.

That alone instilled hate and fear for the American government, and made the voice of radicals popular amongst the poor segments of the populations of these countries. These enemies were projected against the Americans to a degree that they don't hate them out of ignorance, but out of what they have done in the past. There's also the adamant support for Israel, free from condemnation and reparations, as well as the refusal to allow a legitimate Palestinian voice to negotiate over the past peace treaties. Then you have the Lebanese civil war, in which many Palestinians and Lebanese died under the fire of the Israeli and American navies. Sad turnout of events, really. All the blood and money that the Arabs lost over these years further fueled the fires of hatred towards the U.S. The placement of American military bases over the Middle East was another factor. Then you have the Iraq war, the Haiti government, the Nicaraguans and other Latin Americans, et al.

So, what exactly did such events lead to? One might say that the Americans were indeed up to their liberation efforts and the such.. However, it appears that their attempts were clearly not the case. Time and time again, the U.S. government has made itself a lot of enemies when it installed dictators and supported tyrannical regimes that were compliant to its standards. Now that we are seeing a rising left in the Latin Americas, the American government was quick to criticize their efforts and their rise to power.

Ok, now back to the hypocrisy of the Western governments. They have actually ousted the democratically elected Mossadegh, and yet they still support the dictatorial regime of Pakistan and other areas. They are also adamant supporters for Charles Taylor, an adamant Liberian war criminal and head of state.

So, after all these years of instigating foreign policy interventions, support for suppressive/oppressive regimes, and installing of military bases in the Gulf, which OBL regarded as occupation in the Middle East. What did these cycle of events in the Middle East lead to?

It lead to two planes smashing on the sides of two buildings in NYC, which was in itself a crime against humanity.

Afterwards, the American government was thrust into a farcical war against the Afghan and Iraqi governments (the Afghan war was more understandable). However, when the British plutocrats sent their troops to Iraq, they got the hit at 7-7-2005. So, is it really because of "freedoms" that the terrorists hate these governments? No, it's because of foreign policy and interventionism, all which were used to serve the interests of the American government and the American government alone. Now we're seeing oil ministers and corrupt politicians rising in Iraq, and a possible civil war. Indeed, this could threaten the future of the U.S., as such instilling of conflict will instigate more conflict towards it. The Middle East will forever remember the horrors of Abu Ghreib and the instilling of civil strife by the sponsorship of death squads and the firebombing of cities like Fallujah. The fire of hate towards the American government is indeed being fueled by the actions of the American government, and this would increase the risk of more attacks.

Very well thought out, and written. I think I'll add this, and the OP to this thread. Good job!