Does Anybody Believe the Universities' Line About So-Called "American Imperialism' ?

[protectionist]

If you told these students that the USA is the victim of "imperialism", they'd laugh in your face, because you're an idiot.

If they laughed in my face, then they, just like you, would simply be displaying their total IGNORANCE of modern day imperialism. Imperialism is the sending of people into another country, with "direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life" This is precisely what the top imperialists (Mexico, China, India, and the Phillipines) of the US economy are doing.
Mexico - $35 Billion/year (soon to increase greatly)
China - $18 Billion/yr
India - $13 Billion/yr
Phillipines - $12 Billion/yr

You show as much ignorance with the (OFF TOPIC) subject of European and Native American life. Sorry, but I don't buy you "estimates", and even if I did, your use of the word "slaughtered" is wrong and ridiculous. By far, most American Indians in contact with European migrants died of European diseases, for which the locals had built up no biological defenses for. Unfortunate as it may have been, it doesn't comport with the meaning of "slaughter", which is a more intentional thing.

Yes, there were the Trail of Tears, but that was one facet of the overall picture, which liberals, like you now, try to use to demonize all of 19th century white America. For your edification, the overwhelming majority of contacts between White Europeans and American Indians were peaceful. The great majority of 19th century American Indians lived their entire lives many miles away from White settlements, and never laid eyes on a white person.

The genocide that you speak of is true, but it was relatively small in number, and is exaggerated due to the dime store novel industry, which made a fortune selling books to Easteners about the wild west. It was only the warring and violence books that sold the most copies. The ones about peace, trading, intermarriage, etc, didn't sell well. Consequently, people thought that the violence was all there was, due to the prevelance of it on the books they read.

As for genocide against American Indian tribes, they suffered that far more from other rival tribes, for hundreds of years, before a single European ship arrived in the "New World"

Secondly, the arrival of Europeans is one of the best things that ever happened to native Americans of the 20th and 21st centuries. How many of them currently choose to live in teepees, hunt game to survive, ride horses for transportation, wear clothing they made themselves from animal skins, and rely on witch doctors instead of trained American doctors in hospitals ?

And how many of them living today, have never watched a TV show, listened to a radio, listened to a music recording, never heard of a guitar, never touched a computer ?

Without European arrival and contact, they'd probably still be living their prehistoric technology level, without the wheel, without hard walls and roofs, without indoor plumbing, etc, as they did for thousands of years, up until the 20th century.

 

[protectionist]

"During World War II, Japanese forces invaded Vietnam."

"The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. The conflict was intensified by the ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. More than 3 million people (including over 58,000 Americans) were killed in the Vietnam War, and more than half of the dead were Vietnamese civilians. "

"Both sides wanted the same thing: a unified Vietnam. But while Ho and his supporters wanted a nation modeled after other communist countries, Bao and many others wanted a Vietnam with close economic and cultural ties to the West."

"With training and equipment from American military and the CIA, Diem’s security forces cracked down on Viet Minh sympathizers in the south, whom he derisively called Viet Cong (or Vietnamese Communist), arresting some 100,000 people, many of whom were brutally tortured and executed."

"A team sent by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to report on conditions in South Vietnam advised a build-up of American military, economic and technical aid in order to help Diem confront the Viet Cong threat."

"A team sent by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to report on conditions in South Vietnam advised a build-up of American military, economic and technical aid in order to help Diem confront the Viet Cong threat."

Vietnam War: Causes, Facts & Impact

The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States.

www.history.com

What was that definition of imperialism?

"1: 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"

That sounds a lot like imperialism.

I don't see that the definition of "imperialism" has anything to do with the socio-economic or political structure of the country.

But, just to be clear, before the Vietnam War, the country was under the control of the Empire of Japan. Then when they left, two factions fought over control of Vietnam, one wanting ties to the Russian sphere of influence, and the other wanting economic ties to the West. Two imperialist countries, Russian and the United States projected their power into Vietnam, resulting in 3 million deaths, of which half a million were civilians.

After the war, Vietnam became a Communist country.

The politics of Vietnam are defined by a single-party socialist republic framework that "traces its direct lineage back to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) "

Hanoi looks like this.

View attachment 500683

It has a GDP of 261.9 billion USD and a growth rate of 7%, according to the World Bank. 68.7% of the population are internet users.

I would agree that the Vietnam War was at least partially imperialistic (but mostly delusionally defensive), and I opposed it vigorously, after I got out of the US military.

However, the subject TOPIC of the thread (from the OP) still remains >> "provide an example of where "American imperialism" is going on now, or over the past 20 years."

 

[protectionist]

Right, the "Deep State"

These guys.

View attachment 500692

The ones that invaded the U.S. Capitol building, the seat of Democracy of the U.S. Government.

OFF TOPIC

 

[Rigby5]

like when we invaded Iraq and forced them to grant the US exclusive rights to sell their oil.

That is not true

The US never forced such a deal on iraq

If someone told you that they are lying to you

Yes the US did declare martial law in Iraq and illegally took control over all of Iraq's oil, forcing all sales of Iraqi oil to go through US private companies.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

{...
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:
...}

As to the actual smoking gun, you then have to look at the Development Fund for Iraq, for the missing cash.

{...

Lack of transparency​

The Development Fund for Iraq receives 95 per cent of the government proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. The 2003 budget also noted that the Development Fund will provide $1.2 billion for the budget. However, the relationship between the DFI and the budget has not been made clear—the budget anticipated oil revenues of $3.4 billion—much greater than the amount in the DFI then. Moreover, only the Provisional Authority Administrator could authorise spending from the DFI. Little information has been made public about the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority excluded information on its web site about any transfer of assets into and out of the DFI.[7]
...}

Development Fund for Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

YES we did.
We slaughtered over 3 million innocent Vietnamese over the idiotic label we simply do not understand, "communism".

And yes, the US is the single most Nazi country in the world, by far.
Nazi is short for National Socialist Party, which was totally anti-socialist, and was a oligarchy of the wealthy elite.
That is exactly what the US is, with the same Military Industrial Complex in charge that appointed Hitler.

This is the same lunacy that I was talking about in the OP. This poor soul is obviously a victim of the indoctrination machine, and once again, the post is OFF TOPIC dealing with events of half a century ago.

Note: please SHOW anything you think is American Imperialism, happening now or within the last 20 years.

That is easy.
The US illegally holds territories that would prefer to be independent.
Like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, Wake, etc.
Those areas each have their own native culture very different from that of the US, and we prevent their autonomous growth.

Again, the US has almost more military spending than the whole rest of the world combined, and yet has not been attacked and needed to be on the defensive since 1812.
So then all of our military actually is entirely offensive and immoral, with the intent of projecting imperial power.

 

[beagle9]

like when we invaded Iraq and forced them to grant the US exclusive rights to sell their oil.

That is not true

The US never forced such a deal on iraq

If someone told you that they are lying to you

Yes the US did declare martial law in Iraq and illegally took control over all of Iraq's oil, forcing all sales of Iraqi oil to go through US private companies.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

{...
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:
...}

As to the actual smoking gun, you then have to look at the Development Fund for Iraq, for the missing cash.

{...

Lack of transparency​

The Development Fund for Iraq receives 95 per cent of the government proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. The 2003 budget also noted that the Development Fund will provide $1.2 billion for the budget. However, the relationship between the DFI and the budget has not been made clear—the budget anticipated oil revenues of $3.4 billion—much greater than the amount in the DFI then. Moreover, only the Provisional Authority Administrator could authorise spending from the DFI. Little information has been made public about the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority excluded information on its web site about any transfer of assets into and out of the DFI.[7]
...}

Development Fund for Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Anglo American invasion eh ? So you are a sore aced victimized racist eh ?? Otherwise you are either a domestic terrorist or a foriegn enemy, so which are you ?

 

[Rigby5]

"During World War II, Japanese forces invaded Vietnam."

"The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. The conflict was intensified by the ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. More than 3 million people (including over 58,000 Americans) were killed in the Vietnam War, and more than half of the dead were Vietnamese civilians. "

"Both sides wanted the same thing: a unified Vietnam. But while Ho and his supporters wanted a nation modeled after other communist countries, Bao and many others wanted a Vietnam with close economic and cultural ties to the West."

"With training and equipment from American military and the CIA, Diem’s security forces cracked down on Viet Minh sympathizers in the south, whom he derisively called Viet Cong (or Vietnamese Communist), arresting some 100,000 people, many of whom were brutally tortured and executed."

"A team sent by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to report on conditions in South Vietnam advised a build-up of American military, economic and technical aid in order to help Diem confront the Viet Cong threat."

"A team sent by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to report on conditions in South Vietnam advised a build-up of American military, economic and technical aid in order to help Diem confront the Viet Cong threat."

Vietnam War: Causes, Facts & Impact

The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States.

www.history.com

What was that definition of imperialism?

"1: 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"

That sounds a lot like imperialism.

I don't see that the definition of "imperialism" has anything to do with the socio-economic or political structure of the country.

But, just to be clear, before the Vietnam War, the country was under the control of the Empire of Japan. Then when they left, two factions fought over control of Vietnam, one wanting ties to the Russian sphere of influence, and the other wanting economic ties to the West. Two imperialist countries, Russian and the United States projected their power into Vietnam, resulting in 3 million deaths, of which half a million were civilians.

After the war, Vietnam became a Communist country.

The politics of Vietnam are defined by a single-party socialist republic framework that "traces its direct lineage back to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) "

Hanoi looks like this.

View attachment 500683

It has a GDP of 261.9 billion USD and a growth rate of 7%, according to the World Bank. 68.7% of the population are internet users.

I would agree that the Vietnam War was at least partially imperialistic (but mostly delusionally defensive), and I opposed it vigorously, after I got out of the US military.

However, the subject TOPIC of the thread (from the OP) still remains >> "provide an example of where "American imperialism" is going on now, or over the past 20 years."

How can anyone say the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the forced regime change in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are not US imperialism?
They were not defensive, were illegal, and murdered foreign civilians without any defensive purpose.
Even the economic sanctions imposed on Iran and Russia are illegal, imperialist, and a form of economic terrorism, which is a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Mac-7]

like when we invaded Iraq and forced them to grant the US exclusive rights to sell their oil.

That is not true

The US never forced such a deal on iraq

If someone told you that they are lying to you

Yes the US did declare martial law in Iraq and illegally took control over all of Iraq's oil, forcing all sales of Iraqi oil to go through US private companies.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

{...
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:
...}

As to the actual smoking gun, you then have to look at the Development Fund for Iraq, for the missing cash.

{...

Lack of transparency​

The Development Fund for Iraq receives 95 per cent of the government proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. The 2003 budget also noted that the Development Fund will provide $1.2 billion for the budget. However, the relationship between the DFI and the budget has not been made clear—the budget anticipated oil revenues of $3.4 billion—much greater than the amount in the DFI then. Moreover, only the Provisional Authority Administrator could authorise spending from the DFI. Little information has been made public about the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority excluded information on its web site about any transfer of assets into and out of the DFI.[7]
...}

Development Fund for Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also from your source:

real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I not only concede that statement but actually embrace it

In my opinion stabilizing world energy supplies is not only good for America but for practically all the nations

 

[Rigby5]

like when we invaded Iraq and forced them to grant the US exclusive rights to sell their oil.

That is not true

The US never forced such a deal on iraq

If someone told you that they are lying to you

Yes the US did declare martial law in Iraq and illegally took control over all of Iraq's oil, forcing all sales of Iraqi oil to go through US private companies.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

{...
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:
...}

As to the actual smoking gun, you then have to look at the Development Fund for Iraq, for the missing cash.

{...

Lack of transparency​

The Development Fund for Iraq receives 95 per cent of the government proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. The 2003 budget also noted that the Development Fund will provide $1.2 billion for the budget. However, the relationship between the DFI and the budget has not been made clear—the budget anticipated oil revenues of $3.4 billion—much greater than the amount in the DFI then. Moreover, only the Provisional Authority Administrator could authorise spending from the DFI. Little information has been made public about the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority excluded information on its web site about any transfer of assets into and out of the DFI.[7]
...}

Development Fund for Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Anglo American invasion eh ? So you are a sore aced victimized racist eh ?? Otherwise you are either a domestic terrorist or a foriegn enemy, so which are you ?

The British rely on oil profits even more than we do, and obviously the British make no secret of their imperialism in the least, so saying we had British allies in our illegal invasions does not at all help.
The facts are that war is only legal if in immediate defense, or if requested by the UN.
It was against US and international law for the US to invade Iraq, and billions of Iraqi assets were taken by the US.

 

[protectionist]

So, in your opinion, the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a "mistake" that President Truman made.

I don't think Truman made a mistake. The Japs were imperialist aggressors, fascist and fanatical, and a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in many more deaths (Japanese & American both) than what resulted from the bombs.

As a kid born right after World War 2, I talked to many soldiers who had returned from the war. They were young then, and full of life and talkative. Young people today don't understand the chaotic ferocity that went on in that war. In the last island that the US took (Okinawa), in 3 months, more than twice as many Americans died than in the 20 years of battle in the Middle East. 15-20,000 Americans died (most of them US Marines), and over 100,000 Japanese died (most of them committing suicide). Does anybody think an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been less extreme. Not hardly.

 

[beagle9]

YES we did.
We slaughtered over 3 million innocent Vietnamese over the idiotic label we simply do not understand, "communism".

And yes, the US is the single most Nazi country in the world, by far.
Nazi is short for National Socialist Party, which was totally anti-socialist, and was a oligarchy of the wealthy elite.
That is exactly what the US is, with the same Military Industrial Complex in charge that appointed Hitler.

This is the same lunacy that I was talking about in the OP. This poor soul is obviously a victim of the indoctrination machine, and once again, the post is OFF TOPIC dealing with events of half a century ago.

Note: please SHOW anything you think is American Imperialism, happening now or within the last 20 years.

That is easy.
The US illegally holds territories that would prefer to be independent.
Like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, Wake, etc.
Those areas each have their own native culture very different from that of the US, and we prevent their autonomous growth.

Again, the US has almost more military spending than the whole rest of the world combined, and yet has not been attacked and needed to be on the defensive since 1812.
So then all of our military actually is entirely offensive and immoral, with the intent of projecting imperial power.

Bullcrap they want their independence eh ? They can't survive without American money and support when they are in a pinch. Hey, we deserve to have some say in these places when they depend on us so much. Claim independence and move on if don't need us, but they won't do it.

 

[protectionist]

And those who remained in Vietnam, well they are thankful we finally left.

Guide to The Cost of Living in Vietnam with Monthly Budget 2023

Vietnam is an inexpensive country to live in. Most items cost less than half of what you would pay in the West, and anywhere from 5% to 25% less than what...

internationalliving.com

They have a very low crime rate. And considering how wound up you all on the right get over crime you would think that would be a plus.

United States vs Vietnam: Crime Facts and Stats

Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate per million people, Crime levels, Murder rate, Guns per 100 residents and 40 More Interesting Facts and Stats

www.nationmaster.com

 

[Rigby5]

like when we invaded Iraq and forced them to grant the US exclusive rights to sell their oil.

That is not true

The US never forced such a deal on iraq

If someone told you that they are lying to you

Yes the US did declare martial law in Iraq and illegally took control over all of Iraq's oil, forcing all sales of Iraqi oil to go through US private companies.

Iraq invasion was about oil | Nafeez Ahmed

Maximising Persian Gulf oil flows to avert a potential global energy crisis motivated Iraq War planners - not WMD or democracy

www.theguardian.com

{...
Yesterday was the 11th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War - yet to this day, few media reflections on the conflict accurately explore the extent to which opening up Persian Gulf energy resources to the world economy was a prime driver behind the Anglo-American invasion.

The overwhelming narrative has been one of incompetence and failure in an otherwise noble, if ill-conceived and badly managed endeavour to free Iraqis from tyranny. To be sure, the conduct of the war was indeed replete with incompetence at a colossal scale - but this doesn't erase the very real mendacity of the cold, strategic logic that motivated the war's US and British planners in the first place.

According to the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document endorsed by senior Bush administration officials as far back as 1997, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So Saddam's WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility."

The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices:
...}

As to the actual smoking gun, you then have to look at the Development Fund for Iraq, for the missing cash.

{...

Lack of transparency​

The Development Fund for Iraq receives 95 per cent of the government proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. The 2003 budget also noted that the Development Fund will provide $1.2 billion for the budget. However, the relationship between the DFI and the budget has not been made clear—the budget anticipated oil revenues of $3.4 billion—much greater than the amount in the DFI then. Moreover, only the Provisional Authority Administrator could authorise spending from the DFI. Little information has been made public about the DFI. The Coalition Provisional Authority excluded information on its web site about any transfer of assets into and out of the DFI.[7]
...}

Development Fund for Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also from your source:

real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I not only concede that statement but actually embrace it

In my opinion stabilizing world energy supplies is not only good for America but for practically all the nations

Wrong.
It was US economic sanctions that caused Iraqi oil to not be able to reach the market in a consistent manner, and the oil we did allow them to sell for food, in the OFF Program, (Oil For Food), we took a big cut out of.

In fact, the US had illegally helped Kuwait illegally bankrupt Iraq by helping Kuwait steal huge amounts of Iraqi oil before and after Desert Storm.

 

[protectionist]

There are no more US bases in the Philippines. Does the U.S have military bases in the Philippines? - Quora

Thank you for posting ON Topic.

...although military bases are not really a manifestation of imperialism. Many military bases are in countries friendly to the United States, and see them as worthwhile protection from other unfriendly countries, just as was the case with WW2.

 

[Rigby5]

YES we did.
We slaughtered over 3 million innocent Vietnamese over the idiotic label we simply do not understand, "communism".

And yes, the US is the single most Nazi country in the world, by far.
Nazi is short for National Socialist Party, which was totally anti-socialist, and was a oligarchy of the wealthy elite.
That is exactly what the US is, with the same Military Industrial Complex in charge that appointed Hitler.

This is the same lunacy that I was talking about in the OP. This poor soul is obviously a victim of the indoctrination machine, and once again, the post is OFF TOPIC dealing with events of half a century ago.

Note: please SHOW anything you think is American Imperialism, happening now or within the last 20 years.

That is easy.
The US illegally holds territories that would prefer to be independent.
Like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, Wake, etc.
Those areas each have their own native culture very different from that of the US, and we prevent their autonomous growth.

Again, the US has almost more military spending than the whole rest of the world combined, and yet has not been attacked and needed to be on the defensive since 1812.
So then all of our military actually is entirely offensive and immoral, with the intent of projecting imperial power.

Bullcrap they want their independence eh ? They can't survive without American money and support when they are in a pinch. Hey, we deserve to have some say in these places when they depend on us so much. Claim independence and move on if don't need us, but they won't do it.

We don't let them declare independence.
We jail those who try to organize.
And it would not matter if the natives liked the bribes or not, because the point is these lands should not be under any US control at all, and only an imperialist nation would have taken or kept them.

Most of South and Central American are military dictatorships armed, trained, and bribed by the US.
The Monroe Doctrine is pure imperialism.

 

[Rigby5]

There are no more US bases in the Philippines. Does the U.S have military bases in the Philippines? - Quora

Thank you for posting ON Topic.

...although military bases are not really a manifestation of imperialism. Many military bases are in countries friendly to the United States, and see them as worthwhile protection from other unfriendly countries, just as was the case with WW2.

Yes military bases ARE manifestations of imperialism because if we did not have an empire, then we would not need or want US bases all over the world.
When we but nuclear missiles in Turkey, it was not to improve Turkey in any way.

 

[protectionist]

So, here is the problem with the reasoning.

The first is that it a Newsmax reporter asking questions of college students isn't a unbiased survey. Neither is his report on Newsmax an unbiased reporting. No survey by a news reporter is statistically valid. News outlets sell a product to a viewership. By their very nature, they report what their viewers want to hear about. "Newsmax Media is a conservative American news media organization"

That being what it is, colleges and universities aren't some single entity. They are not all the same. Their staff, professors, and student body all have their own independent views. Nearly every Republican in Congress has a University education, as does nearly every Democrat in Congress. None of them hold exactly the same view. They range on the political spectrum from "far right" to "far left". Even that is not a reasonable measure. A better measure puts them on two axis, economic and social opinions.

The reasoning is cartoonish, trying to divide the world into only two groups.

Though, I do find that there are two groups of people in the world, those that divide the world into two groups of people and those that don't.

1. Just because the reporter is from Newsmax, that doesnt not invalidate the questions. the questions are what they are, and the answers are what they are. No, not a "problem."

2. The US is most certainly divided into 2 general groups > left and right....blue and red. Just the way it is. Universities overwhelmingly are left, with very few conservative teachers. The teachers are as ignorant as the students that they "teach", as they have been brainwashed in the same way, a few years earlier.

 

[protectionist]

Hmmm. Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii just to start with.

Topic is >> "provide an example of where "American imperialism" is going on now, or over the past 20 years."

 

[protectionist]

Hanoi is a nice looking city. I was wondering about their purchasing power parity though. And I always have to ask if the average working person with family really gives a C$#p. There are plenty of people with what we would consider a very poor standard of living that are happy. It has more to do with how much control you feel over your own day to day life.

We could have a low crime rate to, make it non-existent, just by putting a police officer on every street corner. Civil rights abuses might go up a bit though.

We really have the wrong measures and definitions. They are muddled and not mutually exclusive. They are characterized and overused, without any consideration for the details, just emotional terms thrown about.

Yes, they are all wound up over crime. Not where they live, crime in that other city. If they were worried about it in their city, they would be at the city council meetings, not commenting of U.S. Message Board. Their solution seems to be to have a dictatorship, one grand leader. That leads, of course, to the very issue that they are so fervently complaining about. But it would be their dictator, the right dictator, the one that does all the right stuff. Not that other guys dictator.

The problem is, and always has been, the accumulation of power into the hands of too few. And that isn't restricted to any particular form of government. And there is a difference between Socialism with a big S and socialism. The terms get manipulated by political leaders until they lose any real meaning and are just buzz words to rile up their base.

The bottom line is the economic structure and how efficiently that structure is distributing scares resources, including the labor that produces and distributes the rest of it. The political structure is for the purpose of managing that economic structure and because the political structure is made up of people, it is always going to be fallible.

But, as someone said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else. It at lease make an attempt of distributing power to keep it from accumulating to much into the hands of two few. That is a completely separate entity to how well it implements the social and economic policies that improve the lives of the people that live within it.

Topic is >> "provide an example of where "American imperialism" is going on now, or over the past 20 years."

 

[protectionist]

I wonder if they went to Iraq and asked students there if they could have given at least one example.

And what do you think they would say, and why ?