That the US is an imperial hegemon.

No, I HOPE they do. I cant, nor bother, predicting the future. You will find the problem of seeing into the future is not so much Australian as it is human.

The Haitians should decide through free and fair elections. They tried, but the forces that be objected. Like so many before him, Aristide became the socialist radical that had to be deposed, even though he was chosen by Haiti to fix it.

In many ways, yes.

How so?

When did I employ violence, theft, oppression and pillage or corruption and bribery?

So invasion and killing is "persuasion"? How cna you called armed intervention mere 'influence'?

But it wasnt to the wishes of the people. I already gave evidence for this. The US did not care at all for Haitians. Clinton forced Aristide to follow the same neo-liberal policy the junta had established before his return. Incidentally I found the Human Rights Watch article about Clinton removing government documents at this time to hid possible CIA assistance to the coup leaders and support for the regime. While I try to find it, you should read this HRW report from 1995:

"The Clinton administration made a sharp reversal in Haiti policy midway through the year, transforming its failed approach of accommodating the military regime into a face-off that resulted in the September intervention. Throughout the year, however, the administration was consistent in failing to promote accountability for human rights violations or to insist on safeguards to prevent their recurrence.

During the first half of 1994, U.S. officials actively promoted a blanket amnesty for human rights violations committed since the coup, in addition to the amnesty for crimes associated with the coup itself already decreed by President Aristide. Even after the U.S.-led occupation of Haiti, the administration consistently failed to oppose a broad amnesty that would deny victims of human rights crimes their internationally guaranteed right to a legal remedy.

Until April, the administration responded to the army's failure to comply with the July 1993 Governors Island accord by pressing President Aristide to accept a power-sharing arrangement with elements of the military regime. During the first months of the year, U.S. Special Envoy Lawrence Pezzullo and U.N. Envoy Dante Caputo backed initiatives which required additional concessions by President Aristide without insisting that the coup leaders comply with their previous commitments.

Consistent with its pursuit of a power-sharing arrangement, the administration downplayed human rights abuses committed by the Haitian armed forces and its supporters, choosing not to condemn publicly serious abuses or to attribute responsibility for them to the military regime. The Haiti entry of the Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, released in February 1994, was characterized by serious omissions and errors of content and analysis. But by far the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing manifestation was an April 12 confidential U.S. Embassy cablegram, signed by Ambassador William Swing, that was leaked to the press in early May. While admitting that violence was high, the embassy's cablegram exhibited more concern that Aristide supporters were using the human rights situation to their political advantage than for the victims of violations: "The Haitian Left manipulates and fabricates human rights abuses as a propaganda tool, wittingly or unwittingly assisted in this effort by human rights NGOs and by the ICM [U.N./OAS International Civilian Mission]." The cablegram provoked an international furor and deepened the schism between the embassy and Haitian and international human rights monitors that would prove difficult to bridge.

During the first half of the year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters continued to interdict and forcibly repatriate Haitians fleeing by sea, according them no prior hearing to determine their eligibility for recognition as refugees. Scores of these repatriates were detained by the Haitian army upon return. In at least two cases, a repatriated Haitian was assaulted in the presence of U.S. officials."
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,HTI,,467fcaa2c,0.html


Just recently:

'Haiti’s judicial authorities have dealt yet another blow to the victims of former leader Jean-Claude Duvalier, Amnesty International said today after the criminal case against the former “president-for-life” for grave human rights violations was dropped.'
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,HTI,,4f2f7e892,0.html

 

I'm not demanding anything different. One should consider ALL interests - not just the region but the world. For that reason they should give some (as much as they can really) to assist those whose lives are threatened. Why should they do this? Well quite simply, if you value your life and seek to maintain it there is no reason not to pursue that same interest that is held by others. Why should you only keep yourself alive when others have exactly the same interest?

I dont "feel" it is right - I know it is right by simple logical deduction.

I hardly see how treating the desire to leave amongst being with equal measure would "destroy" them. I wouldnt impose anything if it were counter productive though.

...?...

Yes...

Logic's.

Why?

Of course, but the interest of one person to live and another to live is the same and hence if one is to work towards their own they ought to work towards both. Hence in the case above, the rich person should, by force if necessary, give some of that wealth to keep the other alive. When it comes to nations, there isnt some kind of existential realm that changes this equation. Outside of the most basic desires for living, no has the right to impose anything on anyone. Hence the US has no right to invade another country to acquire its resources UNLESS such actions were entirely necessary to serve those basic needs in a more productive manner - which is never the objective. This world allocation as it were is best done through a free market were integration is inevitable.

Correct.

Yes. But imperialism is not for survival it is for exploitation, as are the actions of most states, almost all the time.

Could you elaborate on this?

Yes, or something close to that idea, like encourage contraception and only provide care to people with one child (catering in other factors like preexisting parental wealth etc).

In many ways, yes.

The logical principle I describe can be applied to ANY situation REGARDLESS of whom it concerns. It is not contingent upon social values - only logical reasoning. In this way it is vindicated. I described how you would act above. This dilemma would expose, for example, the bs of human rights, as one would have to say human rights cannot, literally, be afforded to most of the population - inevitably leading to the position of utility I essentially describe.

Their moral standards are actually quite good - they just dont follow them. Its like almost any civilization - they always profess the most noble intentions and desires as they commit the gravest crimes.

Sure and I'm not opposed to such examination - I welcome it.

I think at first I purely wanted to discuss the definition of imperialism and its application to US policy. I feel the debate has evolved however. You seem capable and reasonable enough that I can discuss ethical concepts within the debate also. If you dont feel it is relevant or productive we can drop it, but I dont mind either way.

Oh I see. No, the standard of measurement was not founded by me, however I do not attack the US because of whom I acquired that standard from, rather that I felt the US ought to be criticized in line with that measurement.

I do not, however paying a hitman to murder someone is not the same as asking someone to commit suicide.

Ahh ok now I see the dramatic confusion. Yes I was at first applying the US' own moral standards to reveal the corruption of its policy, however I also utilized my own ethical beliefs to make points where required. If you'd prefer I can drop this. That being said these ethical values are logical derived not just invented.

I was, and still am.

Ahh, no I was comparing separately. Obviously somewhere this division became blurred. Like I said I'll drop my values, or at least I will make it far more easier to identify where I am applying mine and where I am using the US'.

Because they are illogical.

See above.

Seems so.

Could you ask more specifically what you want me to say about it?

I wasnt taught them.

 

Almost but not quite.

Yep.

Yep.

You had me convinced you were a moral relativist, and in many ways I am not deterred from this conclusion.

My morals are not based on perceptions, rather a lack of them.

No, irrelevant in the immediate sense of defining the US as an empire or not.

 

Nope.

No I do not contend that at all.

Ok, so lets clarify. The US does not control elites, it control's populations through elites, sometimes directly itself, but almost always the former.

So Americans were "buying" the services of Iraqi oil buy invading the country? So do you typically buy a service from a mechanic with a bullet? You are not understanding my point.

How so?

Yet you failed to show how or that my allegation were unsupported.

What you wrote was not wrong it was incomplete. What was wrong were your conclusions about intent.

All of these were mentioned as evidence to US intent.

You said the US merely intervened to restore democracy. I proved this wrong. It acted to protect strategic interests related to control at every turn of acting.

 

Because at the time no one else knew about it.

LOL You say everyone knew about by quoting an exemption of 'factory exports'! hahaha Tell me where oil exports were included in that policy. And can you show how it was known at the time that Texaco oil was supplying the coup junta in violation of OAS? Of course its not a secret now, I said it was a secret then.

 

It is if these friends are elites suppressing the general population.

When did I say it did.

Think bigger.

 

I fail to understand what you are asking for. Definitions of imperialism, as you noted we have already gone through, list control as a major facet, or 'ruling authority' or 'power over' etc etc. Hence I said we need to determine if the US controls, or if you like 'ruling authority' or 'power over' others to identify imperialism. I thus defined control in order to do this. Are you arguing semantics by disagreeing with the word control or... what? I dont understand your complaint here.

 

At this point I really only have time to address one point. Sorry about this but I'll get back.

Ethic and morals
While I am not a moral activist or rationalist or something like that, I do understand that I do have different morals and ethics from others. But I really am curious what you figure this logical morals and ethics are. If you consider the question (not just your opposition) you should come to the conclusion that logic has no morals or ethics. So I am quiet perplexed that one could say they are using logical morals or ethics to judge anybody.

I posed a question and asked if it is moral to steal to save a life. which you answered yes. However, let us take that one step further. What if that person was a mass murder? Sure you would say, if you did not know this would not count, but let us assume you did? and one more step further if you knew the theft could (NOT NECESSARILY) cause many to die directly because of the theft, would you still do the same? Now, with this last point, it is not a certain but you believe death could happen (not without justification). Are you still morally obliged. Logically, you are. as one death is a certain and the rest are all possible. But logical has not used your moral stance, it has only been used because you had already stated in your morals it is correct. However, My morals state different, let him die, and do you know why? It has nothing to do with morals.

I find it hard to believe you can not distinguish the fact of how you deduce your own moral and ethical stance, taints your understanding of everybody Else's morals. This is demonstrated, when you proclaim that others, who have different moral understanding than what you consider, they should have that are different from yours, are wrong. Yes, your morals and ethics are grown from YOUR perceptions of experiences in YOUR life. But your basis for your morals are learned. These very fundamentals are the cause of very different morals, in one small region or community. By proclaiming that you have the moral judgment means that you consider yourself Superior to all around, who do not have the same standards, as yourself. You, however, have not experienced, all there is to be experience in this universe. In other words, No you do not have the right or the ability to judge anybodies morals or ethics, as they are slanted, no matter how slight (although I expect larger than you think) which skews your perception (yes yours) to what others intention are.

This stands to the entire reasoning to remove morals and ethics from the debate. As I feel you should have the same morals as me (because I am sooo gooood in my own eyes) I realise it is Amoral to expect everybody else to think like me. This debate would be extremely boring if we did, because it would not have gotten past post number 3.

How does all this equate to the debate? You seem to think that morals by your measure ( or anybody Else's you wish to proclaim) should be brought upon the US Foreign policy.

In other words LOGIC has no morals or ethics, morals and ethics are not logical. As in Haiti, Logic states that an elected official should be placed in government over a self appointed dictator or military governance. Your objection that the people could have changed their mind is irrelevant. At the time there was no ability to have elections or even just to pole a few. and although you do not like the time line which brought about an election after instilling the deposed leader, there was an election and the party was returned. Just because you do not like that it took US government intervention into it, in no way shows any logical moral demand for the US to do anything other than what they did at the time. In the very fact, there was no MORAL obligation for the US to intercede in any capacity at all. From that, you could say, they should not have acted at all. but that too is irrelevant as they did. They stated they felt a moral obligation to do so. Although their actions at the time caused many deaths they did instill a governance that the people had elected previously and even re-elected after. So what is the moral stance, allow a military authority that was killing people by the thousands continue or act to try and change this position? What do your logical morals say about that?

Hind sight has 20/20 vision. But at the time the US did the best it could to resolve the situation, with the resources of that time. To suggest, it could have been handled better, which it could have, is simply bashing them for attempts to do right. You attempt to say another leader should have been instituted, simply because you do not agree(or somebody, you believe), is simply wrong. If the queen went to Australia say in the middle of 2010 and kicked Gillard out and Gillard then negotiated the return of Australian self governance, would you then demand the opposition leader be reinstated as PM? Logically that does not make sense. in your mind it is logical to move straight into elections? No, the governance needs to be brought back to stability before elections could be called, or do you disagree? Do you disagree because at this time opinion poles have her as the least liked leader in Australia, AT THIS TIME?

Do you see the error of the moral debate within this debate?

Oh by the way, I grew up during much of the of this time, so I actually have real-time experience of what WE knew at the time. I do not have to rely on the others (you now, historians and political Authors) to tell me what I KNEW.