That the US is an imperial hegemon.

Yes. Take US support for the coup of the military in Honduras in 2009, totally condemned by OAS, but the US still supported the new regime.

It requires control and dominance. Its actions are evidence of this fact.

Wait for my reply on Haiti. I'll bundle it all together.

But you said it does because of self interest. So what do you actually believe? Or are you a hypocrite?

Sorry to tell you this but when you make a claim you need to back it up, not resort to insults.

I have validated everything I have said. Like I said, I will give a full summary of Haiti in the next couple of days.

What info was that?

LOL just read wikipedia, that's enough to see my point. If you want some scholarly material I can provide that also.

 

Look I am going to sort this out first before anything else.
First you say the US supports democracy, then you say it doesn't. Now you say the US lies because it only acts for its own interests, which apparently is ok because everyone is self interested. Now you say self interest isnt good or a basis of morality in actions. Then you say the US doesn't care about whose in power just what benefits them, now you are saying the US wants "the best outcome for the region". So which is it? Is the US self interested and careless, or altruistic and concerned? Define your position and then keep it.

Like I said I have used around 5 sources other than Chomsky. Please stop repeating this lie.

I already have. Obviously you like to ignore reality.

When the weekend comes around (a couple of days) I will give my take on US hegemony in Haiti. I already gave a thorough analysis of US relations with Haiti in the past which were clearly imperialistic.

 

There is you problem, the US does not care what other countries do. They have to consider their influence in a fast changing world, so as not to be seen by the people, to be detrimental to their own well being. This would in the long run, would work against them. This is something that recently has only come to the light of the US foreign relations. However, I would wonder how much you would consider Clintons public reflections based on her previous statements in other nations.

So, when Obama states the US condemns the actions of the regime, It actually means they condemn the regime? Regardless of the sentiment you consider, even if they did or did not support the regime the stirrings of the people should have been a wake up call anyway.

As I said ' If YOU pay attention....'

No, that is not your point at all. I do concede there is no justification, your point is that they are IMPERIALISTIC this also does not in anyway make your point.

so there are relevant

However, your standard of measure of imperialistic intent is attempting to procure self interest( better outcomes for ones nation) which you agree, Australia attempts. Expand if you like but it would seem to me you are being exactly what you claim of me, hypocrisy.

MMM....yes there is. If you would hold one nation to a measurement to attain you premise and then proclaim that measurement to be irrelevant to other nations, as you claim them not to be in the same. definitely a double standard and smacks completely of hypocrisy.

I think you can see where I am going here with this line which you revert to further down your reply. However more directly to my point, all this stands to point out exactly why the previous questions are relevant, which you dispute.

Really, you do understand? So why is it you proclaim the US is not reliant on the OPEC outcomes, par who supplies the US?
I do not think you do, so until you expand on your one word answer or at least make statements which actually show some relation to the real aspects of OPEC's influence, I will consider you are actually not considering the impacts of influence.

I have already stated this.
1. They reduce supply.
I concede you do not understand the global effort this imposes and the outcomes. read back and understand a little of basic economics
2. Set Higher prices for crude oil, on all signatory members of OPEC.
I concede you do not know who IS a signatory of OPEC, so I will give you a clue. Australia is one of them.

Naive at the least.

mmm...I think I will leave this bit for a while. I think it will either answer itself in a while. but then again I see below how inconsequential the average Joe is.

lol...sorry have to laugh. You do know about the housing bubble. Do you consider, all those people buying houses as the corporate America? or they did not exist?

Apparently you would not, seeing as how you consider the average Joe as being inconsequential to politics and economics.

God yeah. The US is an arrogant lot, no doubt. why should they really care about other nations. It Is apparent, they will come to the aid of others but they do not wish to delve too much into the politics to gain the best outcomes(just before you get too into cryptic meanings, yes they do delve but they do not care the kind of regime).

Of coarse they have lied, never said they have not. As for why it justified ventures, never said it did.

You use the term of 'morally' totally out of context to the way the US uses the term. The US never claims that democracy is morally correct. They claim they have the moral right to stand for democracy and the moral right to intercede in other nations because of ...... (put whatever you want there) but they never state that democracy is morally right. That is just ludicrous.

Interesting thought, you have there. Yep, I must agree, if you kill them, they will be your ally. Can not argue there. However, I do think if you kill them they will not be anyone’s ally, they will just be dead. My guess is, you will attempt misconstrue this statement, so let me say, I consider this to be the most stupid justification for this war I have ever heard.

Did he really? Perhaps you could provide the evidence and he can be tried in a US court for breaches of US law which where enacted by BUSH senior.

Whatever floats your boat. Interesting that you now consider it a joke.

As I suspected, little understanding of the geopolitical scheme of things.

Sorry, haven't I. No, it is you that is naive. As somebody that would attempt to be rather clued up on historical events, you show little of how things work. How many wars, across time, where fought over the stupidest things? How many people died, over some silly bloody argument between regimes that amount to just telling them to go away( you know telling them to (*)(*)(*)(*) off)? If you are so knowledgeable on these things, perhaps you could explain how stupid it is to commit nations to war simply because one leader gave another lead the bird? Come now, you are not really that naive are you?

Perhaps you missed the WIKILEAKS article that pointed out that it was Rudd who was actually warmongering with china? So, perhaps you miss the nuances, now China has the advantage of manoeuvring the situation, to show, even if they do decide to enact anything, they now have the ability to proclaim pre-emptive self defence. OR do you really believe that the world will not consider Rudd's statements, if things change, not to the benefit of Australia?

So, who's logic are you really discussing? The US or Australia?

What if you think you say it enough it is true? I admit no such thing. As stated, using your measurement everybody is the same. However, you proclaim one is different. Either, you only speak of you personal belief. OR your standard of measure is incorrect and flawed, as you yourself proclaim that while others meet the same standard they have a totally different result. Which is it then?

Just to your problem with my belief of imperialism, guess you really do not have any understanding of what I have said. let me spell it out simply for you.
IMPERIALISM IS DISTRUCTIVE
I have also pointed out that the US have also understood this point for a long time. What you do not seem to grasp.
Hegemony is simply a fact. I do not concern myself with this as it has actually allowed me to perform my tasks far better than without it.

 

[

MMM...yes and we have covered why it is relevant. It is all through this and a couple of posts. let us not run in circles on this. Suffice to say , it is relevant to the way in which you measure the US. If it a measure for one nation it must also be a measure for another. You proclaim totally different for Australia and a couple other nations.

By this thread and debate and according to you NOW. just to clarify. I did say if you had proclaimed that they WHERE imperialistic then I can agree. but NOOOO, you say they ARE. The onus is on you. You can not deflect with this sort of stuff.

So you can not refute and then proclaim victory. I think others can see what has occurred here. However, I will state once again, it is not you or I, that can claim victory as it is necessary to have the observers proclaim this. You have not convinced me of your case but I do not proclaim victory. Again, if you say it enough, does not mean you are right.

Big fail there. I have actually made no statements justifying US actions. go back and read them. I have made statements reasoning their actions, big difference. I have not raised the moral issue you have, with little success, I too, point out. As for being hypocrisy(as stated before) why is it you think it a moral standing to do something in your own self interest? Just because you consider it in self interest, which I point out is actually amoral, does not mean you can say it is morally right.

No, does not change the fact they are all international actions. Claim them as legal and illegal all you like.

I know, but why do you feel it is important to re-iterate your stance. I am beginning to think, you would simply deny the house is collapsing, even if the tiles on the roof where hitting you on the head.

So, your historical and empirical evidence supports that stance eh?

 

No no, do not now change your examples. Finish Haiti first. You make some wild claims of my analysis and can not back them. Come now, unsupported statements do not allow you to then proclaim others.

As I said I will only return to examining other events more closely when you come with rebuttal of my previous. If you then attempt to slander my posts without evidence and expect to just move on. This destroys all credibility of your debate. If you can not back your statements then it will destroy your credibility as well.

So you proclaim. I await the previous, before I delve into this.

I am waiting. You however, need to keep them separate, as you make some extraordinary claims without support.

WTF... are you an idiot? Should I really believe you are at university or pre-school? I have never justified anything the US has done.

Let me get this straight, because I believe they do things in their own self interest(just as you and you condemn them for it), you think I am justifying it?
Perhaps, you should condemn yourself for doing things in your own self interest, apparently you consider it justification for anything.

No, I am not resorting to insults at all. I made that statement to revert from making insult. However, as you are simple to insulted and have actually moved from debating to throwing disparaging comments about.

First of all, up until your latest barrage of comments, I had very much liked this debate. You have carried yourself well with only a few asperses to the debate.
Second of all, I feel that you have moved from even and thoughtful debate to simply casting dispersions because you have run your coarse.

When you have been called on comments on one of your examples of your debate, with sources and analysis, you can only proclaim without sources to be incorrect or a lie. You now would like to deflect to other examples, without sources and proclaim that you will get back to it.

You proclaim you understand how organisations and governments think and work, but have not provided evidence. You proclaim to be well versed in history and can analyse it well between sources. Yet you make the most obtuse statements based on this knowledge.

I thought that there was an agreement at the beginning of not simply insulting and not just posting links to answer questions.

Obviously of you intend to continue along this line it will simply degrade into insult. Is that your intention? Please tell me now as I have entertained your misrepresentation of my words, deliberate misinterpretations of my comments and spent much time explaining the simplest of things.

If you want to debase the debate, because you can not back some of your claims, then tell me now and we can end this now.

Hypocrite, look in the mirror, I have shown everything I have stated, which is less than I can say for you.

Then your claim of validating everything, is incorrect then. How can you actually make that claim, then tell me you will validate a claim in a few days.

Read back. I provided 4 sources you provide none. Sorry, Chomsky is yours.

Been there, done that. Found to be lacking, so I did not wish to insult your intelligence with such. Apparently you wish to insult mine. So which is it, do you wish to continue with measured debate or do you wish to deflect and leave this now?

 

Ok, let me get this straight, hard as this may be for you.

No, never did.

No, never did.

Yes they lie, but I never said it was because it acts in its own self interest.

No, I never said that at all apparently, you assume too much, or are your simply that obtuse.

No, I say self interest is amoral. It is you, who wishes to bring morality into this, I say it should be kept out.

Yes, never claimed different, it is you who claims I say other.

NO, how do you get that from this comment? I said the best interest for the nation. The nation being the US, not the region. Perhaps, I need consider, I am speaking to a ten year old.

My position has not change one little bit, I thought I was debating a rather more intelligent person that could comprehend what is written. Apparently, I need to be more careful, how I state things. My, apologies for not dumbing my comments down.

Where? show me one that refutes mine.

Who lies? you claim as your main source then proclaim as not being a source.

No, you actually haven't. you quoted Chomsky’s book, proclaiming as an introduction to you claims and then say it is your analysis. I am really beginning to wonder.

You have done no such thing. However, I await your analysis of my sources and how incorrect they may be. If you do not intend to carry reasonable debate please tell us all now. It has degraded enough, to go on with further insults in practice and on intelligence.

 

In addressing your premise you seem to have forgotten one very important aspect of you premise. Australia is in a imperialistic monarchy, which shows you and the rest of the world the highly inefficient ideals of imperialism. The resources necessary to maintain a monarchy are actually incredible. The English monarchy has in itself has proven to be a regime that could not continue to grow. The monarchy would have attempted to continue to grow if left, however it would have been through expansionism rather than economic growth. This was seen by the hierarchy of England which moved against the monarchy to instil a parliament and eventual governance. The retention of the monarchy was more in a traditional sense with some emergency powers to meet the peoples wishes not the monarchies.

Now while you may disagree with this, you have to agree that the imperialist system is so limited due to the resources required to maintain such a regime becomes enormous. This has been actually shown thorough out many nations over the centuries and should lay example for you. In your hatred of US hypocrisy, you ignore many nations who act in the same manner simply to justify your premise of imperialism. No matter how much you hate the US, you must consider that they are not stupid. That is to say, that the US see the many examples across the world of imperialistic intent and along with many other nations realise the futility of it, in the broader picture. This does not detract that the US does do stupid things at times, however generally they are very intelligent. This is shown, because the US have hegemony over the world (in fact, not thought). This you may dislike.

I would assume by much of your many retorts, that you are actually against globalisation as well. I may assume too much, but that is the indication I get from much of what you have posted. The fact that globalisation has become very important to western economy growth, should indicate to you that imperialism actually impairs growth in such economies. Control is greatly diminished and unnecessary in such economies for the US as most nations attempt to align themselves with the largest and wealthiest economy to facilitate best and most fluent growth of their own economy. Because the US has hegemony, that makes them the target economy at this time.

However, unless the US find some sort of fiscal reform ( as appraised by their own economists) they may actually loose their economic advantage over the rest of the world. You will only begin to notice this once countries begin to align themselves with other nations, possibly one being China. The paradigm that you are use to now, as being one of the US’s leading allies would mean that Australia would need to find great social and fiscal change which could in the broadest terms mean a significant reduction in standards for the people.

What, you may ask, has all this reform and so on have to do with imperialism of a nation? The fact is that at this present time all this means the resources required to maintain a imperialistic governance has been absorbed by the simple growth of the nations, to improve stature and economy for the better of it’s populace. In globalisation, it has become increasingly apparent, to insure that nations remain independent, for a far more productive and lucrative relationship, with the US. That is why the US simply wishes to support regimes that you and I may dislike but simply mean the best outcome for the US. The fast is, the US do not care what type of regime is in motion as long as it has the best returns for the US. This does not necessarily mean, the best for the people or for other nations. This does not mean the democratic or despots, it is simply the best of what is on offer at the time. The US does not care what style of governance is in power as long as it is able to deal with them. Many times this has proven to be very disappointing for the US, however, much of the time it has also been very beneficial for them.

You say you dislike the lies and hypocrisy of the US’s foreign policy, you would also dislike the fact that the US has hegemony over the rest of the world. This has clouded your thinking of US foreign policy and morality. Should another nation stand by your understanding of their moral and ethical standards simply because you dislike the nations use of it’s standings in the world paradigm? What nation should the world align itself to? Who should set the standards that other nations must aspire to? It is one thing to cast dispersions on another nation because in your own moral integrity demands you speak against them, but what nation would meet your moral and ethical standards? Australia? What a joke that would be, the Australian government still consider itself above the people. Australia still has a government that would rather not listen to the people they are elected to represent and pursue a direction of their own making. You talk of corrupt policy in governance and yet you have a government that is more interested in lining it’s own pockets than listening to the people who elect them. You have a government promising the people the world, delivering nothing. Much funding pricing promises and researching promises only to put to committee once they have the opportunity to implement them. AND YOU DEFEND THEM WHILE CONDEMNING OTHERS. Go figure.

Paramount to the debate is other nations due to the fact you place your measurement over the US based on your understanding of morals and ethics of other nations.

Just food for thought

 

No one in this debate is a heavy weight debater; the premise proposed by Megadeth is of course false and debate need go no further than a read of the definition of Imperialism and Hegemony; two words Megadeth obviously has no clue to their meanings or he wouldn't misuse them here.

im•pe•ri•al•ism noun \im-ˈpir-ē-ə-ˌli-zəm\

Definition of IMPERIALISM
1: imperial government, authority, or system
2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

he•gem•o•ny&#8194; &#8194;/h&#618;&#712;d&#658;&#603;m&#601;ni, &#712;h&#603;d&#658;&#601;&#716;mo&#650;ni/ Show Spelled[hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies.
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (especially among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

No matter how many lies, obfuscations, deflections and desperate attempts to parrot idiot talking points one tries to make to support the idiot premise, the historic facts do not support the emotional hysterics from the uninformed who assert such inane nonsense.

 

So who claimed they where? But who are you to come in with subterfuge in your opening response?

While I totally agree with these definitions, where did they come from? I do not recall and would prefer not to run back to what I sourced just to check if I posted that exact same. Just curious that is all.

Well yes, but why not? Has proved interesting to this point. I have been waiting, myself, for the sources that would indicate the imperialistic intent of the US, rather than the obvious insult the writers would prefer to cast on the nation simply because they oppose the hegemony of the US in the world. Or do you disagree that the US has that hegemony?

It is funny that those that oppose the US's hegemony and actions in the world scheme would assume that being called imperialistic is an insult. Doing so is more intrinsic in the mentality toward the US from the people of the nation who are casting the dispersions. However, how could the US be insulted by something that is inaccurate, completely.

The mentality is what interests me, the way people try to perpetuate lies when they themselves when drawn on the issue, people usually find how incorrect the intent must be due to limitations on the regimes supposedly imposed. Far greater minds than yours and mine are in control of these nations. The information that is privileged to them, is far greater than the information accessible to us, or is it?

 

Sourced from Webster’s online dictionary; most dictionaries have the same definitions. Someone as intelligent as you should know this. Do you need a link?

 

How can it possibly be a hegemony based on the definitions provided? I am all eyes and ears.

 

As you should be well aware, dictionaries do not necessarily word the definitions the same as each other. Wording is very important and I was only curious, as I had also posted definitions and was not sure they where the same. Not necessary to continue on with this.

 

Are not the US the leading economy in the world at this time?
Are not the US considered the mightiest military and political force in the world at this time?

and to you definition,

as to number 2.

 

Let me first say I am EXTREMELY SORRY for my late response. A number of things happened and I haven't been on PoliticalForum in 3 months, so please dont take offense. I also realize now I didn't post my little Haiti-history thing. Something obviously happened when I posted it, so I will have to find where I saved on my computer to post it again.

Indeed, the history of US foreign policy has been a slowly building (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Ever since post WW2, the US has been internationally on the decline in, in respect to its own internal conditions and internationally.

What do you mean?

Not at all. I realize earlier on I denied hegemonic intentions in Aussie foreign policy, but you are correct they do exist, and further reflection I am as much against them as the US'. In that sense, I am certainly onside with your earlier point.

No you are assuming consumers, or rather the fate of consumers is of interest to the US government. I have said repeatedly it isnt.

Companies remain (usually) stable, but yes certainly the US does not dominate OPEC, nor do companies. Nevertheless its power in the region for express resource control is its motivation.

No I consider the accompanying bailouts an example of my point.

But consider in this then; the US expressly acts within the international community in the name of democracy and freedom. Since you cna agree with me they clearly dont care, and isnt just a simple lie, rather a rampant culture of political propaganda, does this not make you question US foreign policy to a greater extent than "oh they're just telling an everyday fib"?

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me? Are you being serious?

Please tell me you are joking. If you are being serious, so as to save time, what would be an appropriate example of me to give to prove this assertion wrong?

 

As I said by correcting myself earlier, Australia does indeed exhibit characteristics of hegemonic imperialism in the same way the US perpetuates more broadly.

Given your contention is imperialism is destructive, could you explain where our disagreement lies? Surely you are not going to say US foreign policy has not been destructive?

I didnt proclaim victory, I merely noted your avoidance of that clash.

Um... you asked me a question to test me consistency and I answered with consistent principle? The tiles might be from your own roof, I think.

Do I need to name the dictators? I thought the countries and dates were enough. If you want I can name the despots.

Fair enough. Like I said I thought I had posted Haiti but something obviously happened. I have tried to find it in a word doc on my computer but it looks like I'll have to rewrite it. I will put it up in good time hopefully.

Well, I could go back and site your numerous comments, but at least you say that here, that is good enough for me. You obviously wrote in a manner that led me to another conclusion.

Indeed, dont trust any of those comments until I post my small recap-of-history-of-Haiti comment.

That's because my comment didnt appear. I will repost it, as I said.

 

A better description would be small hegemonic state in Asia that is part of the British monarchy headed commonwealth.

I think you will find the British empire did employ extensive expansionism to secure its economic growth.

I agree before I did not thoroughly reflect on the imperialism of other nations such as my own, although I did admit foul play. Granted even if my mind had not changed, this wouldnt much change the matter at hand - ie the nature of US foreign policy.

I dont think they have realized the futility. Most empires dont until they reach that stage in which they must either self destruct or cut off their empire to secure their original possessions - as which happened with Britain.

No, but go on...

If you wont to discuss the nature of current global economy that's ok, but not entirely relevant. The US did not establish its current economic dominance (like Britian in the industrial revolution) through fair and principled economic growth. Indeed today it still very much violates such principles. Haiti a case in point as you can read below.

Not really. Australia's growth has been hinged on its resources market which has been booming since the late 70s. In that sense we have already become economically aligned with China. Australia was actually quite a well off nation at the turn of the last century and that was when we employed some of the mostly highly protectionist economics the world had seen. That isnt an argument for a return to protectionism, rather that I do understand the history and current state of the Australian economy by way of international interactions.

I agree, but the fact is a dictatorship is often a lot better than a democracy for achieving those ends. And it is this fact that makes the US imperialistic - the need for control and dominance. This policy was doomed from the beginning, yet continues, sure perhaps less than another time, but it is still very much alive.

But the fact the US pursues these ends - of the best outcome for it at the cost (or incidental benefit) of those others involved is in itself an imperialistic motive.

I would like to think their doesnt have to be a world policeman. Whether its the US, China or even Australia acting in that way it is wrong, regardless of the power or perceived 'invitation' to do so.

Not sure. I am cautious to name a country given I could be sure of the ones I have in mind, but I am sure there are some. Perhaps Vietnam, internationally.

No, certainly not.

And this changes my position... how? I didnt not choose the government we currently have.

Well they are delivering something (its just not good enough. (Dont forget Aussies live better than our fellow citizens in the US)

When did I defend them?

Not at all. I base my understanding of morals and ethics NOT on other nations but on rational and objective thought.

Indeed.

 

Well that was intended as a lighthearted joke, but clearly you are too wound up with rage to look at anything presented with a differing viewpoint in that way.

Prove it.

I stated definitions myself, but anyway...

And I have shown how US international policy covers BOTH descriptors.

Point out ONE lie.

Which facts are those. No, I dont think you are capable of responding.

 

I cant seem to find what I thought I had posted earlier, so I'm just going to use the points you made earlier and write accompanying points in regards to my contention.

So Papa-doc (as he is known) takes power through the military and resorts to harsh measures to maintain his control. "Francois Duvalier quickly gained U.S. support after his accession to power in 1957 and the Eisenhower administration remained closely aligned to him in succeeding years... Throughout the Eisenhower administration, the U.S. ignored Duvalier's elimination of his rivals and the violation of human rights in Haiti. The New York Times (1958c; 1958b), acknowledging that his methods were brutal, gave Duvalier its support, calling him "a man of principle with a desire to pacify his country."
Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 3, pg 321 http://www.indiana.edu/~sfpi/files/LoescherScanlan.pdf
There is a minor escalation in military and economic aid as Kennedy seeks collaboration form Haiti in the OAS to denounce Cuba. The US begins to cut aid with it being suspended, including all humanitarian aid, in 1962. The next year diplomatic ties are cut as the Haitain economy is dominated by the government. In the same style as Trujillo in Dominican Republic, the CIA plans an assassination but calls it off.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/haiti/politics-duvalier.htm

Baby-doc opens the economy to the US, which really reestablishes pre-WW2 relations with Haiti. His regime is utilized favorably by international, primarily US businesses. An example of the economic relationship is described by Michael Parenti in Against Empire; a baseball is made by a Haitian at 2 cents a ball while sold in the US for $10 or more(pg29). USAID announces a grand scheme to turn Haiti into the "Taiwan of the Caribbean," forecasting "a historic change toward deeper market interdependence with the United States." Trouillot observes.
Nixon reinstates military and economic aid with serious support for the brutal regime. The rise and dominance of US agro-business in Haiti also takes place during this time.
It is interesting to note the almost unwavering support of the regime that sees the US turn back refugees, which is what my first link investigates.
As the atrocities continues, and Haitian people generally are deprived of basic capacities to live any semblance of a decent existence, Reagan bestows congratulatory rhetoric over baby-doc as a protector against Cuban adventurism and as a harbinger of democracy.
Read more and the quote here: http://tfclub.tripod.com/list.html

The CIA makes extensive attempts to guide the results of elections but fails. But the political instability means the US has the opportunity to tell the wrong winner of the elections (Aristide) how things are supposed to be done.

 

When the UN held negotiations between Aristide and the coup leaders, with Clinton hosting the talks, the US was reluctant to see Aristide return to power as elites had been highly critical of his tendency to allow for protests and worker strikes - something the US hates, as it impedes business productivity. US-Haiti trade actually increased during the years of the coup regime, which retained power with all the traditional military forces trained and supplied by the US. As I say, trade continued in violation of the OAS embargo with the Texaco Oil company secretly allowed to supply the junta. When Clinton put Aristide back in power, he ordered to introduce a strict neoliberal agenda. His proposals to restore basic freedoms and diffuse the power if the state by reducing the power of the army were expressly barred. A USAID report in 1995 indicated the further destruction of local agriculture had escalated with a rise in the downtrodden urban labor market acceptable for further manufacturing exploits by US companies. As conditions dwindled, Aristide make a turn around, attempting stand his ground by rebuking US advocated econo0mic policies. A dramatic increase in state spending to assist the huge number of poor saw upper class orchestrated riots and the like. Bush 2 stepped in to "rescue" Aristide by kidnapping him (as Aristide correctly described the event) and transport him to somewhere in Africa.
I used William Blum's Killing Hope primarily for the facts mentioned here but also Chomsky again because his research is so dense and extensive. See: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199411--.htm. Also see the documentary Aristide and the Endless Revolution: http://www.aristidethefilm.com/

I also used
http://countrystudies.us/haiti/17.htm
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/duvalier.html
http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/20...and-us-policy-undermined-the-haitian-economy/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=21650
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABX246.pdf
http://www.1199seiu.org/media/news.cfm?nid=2150
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/21/haiti-wikileaks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/17/red-heat-alex-von-tunzelmann
Also Greg Gandon's Empire's Workshop and Jenny Pearce's Under the Eagle.

 

Have you read the OP? You really look like an idiot by just reading the heading of this thread then drawing a conclusion about its 22 pages in the form of "it cant possibly be true." If you're all eyes and ears, go to comment 1 and read all examples and points. If you disagree, articulate it thoroughly and as analysis - NOT as a childish one liner.

 

It is apparent that I am arguing with someone with zero reading comprehension based on the definitions provided:

Quote:
he•gem•o•ny&#8194; &#8194;/h&#618;&#712;d&#658;&#603;m&#601;ni, &#712;h&#603;d&#658;&#601;&#716;mo&#650;ni/ Show Spelled[hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies.
1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (especially among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

If the United States were even close to those definitions, then she would have taken advantage of the weakness of Europe and Asia post WWII. But alas, the marshal plan pretty much puts this idiot premise to rest doesn't it?

The political effects of the Marshall Plan may have been just as important as the economic ones. Marshall Plan aid allowed the nations of Western Europe to relax austerity measures and rationing, reducing discontent and bringing political stability. The communist influence on Western Europe was greatly reduced, and throughout the region communist parties faded in popularity in the years after the Marshall Plan. The trade relations fostered by the Marshall Plan helped forge the North Atlantic alliance that would persist throughout the Cold War. At the same time, the nonparticipation of the states of Eastern Europe was one of the first clear signs that the continent was now divided.

 

Why am I wound up with rage; because you say so?

I believe you are mistaking my disdain for blatant ignorance for rage.

Already been there and done that. Read up on the rebuilding of Europe and Asia post WWII if you still don&#8217;t comprehend historic facts.

Yes, and they were laughably inept, irrational and based on your distorted interpretations of definitions, events and history.

No, you have selectively attempted to show US international policy by ignoring events and conditions that influenced that policy and while also ignoring other nation&#8217;s policies that influenced ours.

Your entire premise is based on a lie; the lie that US policy has been to dominate the world. If anything our policy has been one of liberation. Again, take a look at our actions in WWII and post WWII to comprehend those FACTS.

In addition, you selectively ignore the efforts of Communist nations to dominate their neighbors and the world and spread their despicable ideology in South America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

Last, but never least, you also ignore the fact that the US has the longest unprotected borders with Mexico and Canada in the world. You would think that if we were such a threat to our neighbors, Canada would be building the maginot line along the 49th parallel.

I am quite certain based on your incoherent rants that you are incapable of distinguishing what a fact is and rather supplant that with nothing more than &#8220;because you say so&#8221; and your incredibly irrational hatred of things American.

 

Why does one need to articulate thoroughly to rebut what is plain utter nonsense from you and Noam Chomsky? Seriously; you think your myopic point of view which selectively ignores all other nations’ policies and events trumps history?

Your laughably irrational viewpoint of American is only superseded by your incredible ignorance of the historic record and desperate selective use of that record to support your incredibly irrational views about America.

One only need one word to rebut the nonsense you fill this forum with; BS.

 

Where?

Historic facts of what?

How so? You need to explain yourself - one liners dont cut it with me.

What did I ignore?

Like?

Porve its a lie - ie show where I am deceiving people. Again one liners dont cut it.

LOL Perhaps you can show the "liberation" in the examples of intervention and secretive political attack in the OP.

I have in my OP and more. Go ahead and refute them.

Where and how did I do that? Furthermore, how would a change in my analysis of this point change my conclusions?

Not really. USA isnt a threat to Canada. It was once, but isnt anymore - similar with Mexico.

Give an example.

LOL So basically all you have is ad hominem. I suspect you wont address my OP in any way, let alone substantiate your one liners.

 

Because there is a burden of proof for you to show where and how my points are so.

Again, where was my analysis so poor? Pick a point of discussion and we'll flesh out your criticisms. You can even pick up from a point of debate previously discussed.

Do you have ANYTHING other than mindless, unsubstantiated rhetoric? ROFL Epic fail.

That basically summarizes why you CANT refute anything I have said so far.