US foreign policy

[JamesHackerMP]

13 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Funny how the US set the bar so high for the German people, when they had little to no control over their government policies - Hitler was a dictator. 

The US has over 70 illegal invasions of sovereign nations just since WWII, the deaths of tens of millions, world leading terrorism, by far, numerous genocides, ... . 

Do you suggest, James, that you are unaware of all this?

I am not sure about 70, but I'm aware that the US pulls plenty of shenanigens.  I am definitely not unaware of this.  My entire point is that perhaps the situation would be better if our policy was more consistent, more careful, slower to act when force would be rash, quicker to act when the situation actually calls for it, and the government (or at least most of it) presented a united front.  (The six points I made above.)

I'm not sure what you mean by setting the bar high for Germans.  As far as "illegal invasions", by the way, the pre WWII world seemed more inclined to accept diplomatic conventions such as declarations of war and so forth.  As far as I am concerned, there hasn't been a declared or truly "legal" war since WWII.  The cold war made a lot of that stuff fuzzy at best. 

27 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

A whole bunch of brainless idiots are the US politicians starting with the President himself.

Recently Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a vocal Trump supporter, praised the recent attacks in Tehran and suggested that the United States should work with the Islamic State to counter Iran. He praised the recent Islamic State attack in Tehran as a “good thing” and suggested that maybe the United States should work with the militant organization.  He is suggesting working with ISIS who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity including kidnap and rape of women and ethnic cleaning, and who stand for a very backward and brutal version of Islam even condemned by a great majority of Muslim extremists. Never mind the fact that many innocent bystanders not government officials got into cross fire and murdered by the terrorists.

What a fucking idiot this US congressman is. Shame on Americans and shame on USA.

If you say so.  But I don't see what one congressman of no particular importance has anything to do with it.

 

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

After 16 years of listening to the acrimonious belligerent refusal to accept virtually any criticism of US foreign policy, which is to say the foreign policy of the alliance we belong to and effectively our's, I'm afraid our character stemming from our lack of principles is just about all that is left to discuss.

Perhaps if our exceptionalism in the face of our fear of tyranny, that requires and justifies our support for tyranny, was clearly and boldly if not proudly expressed in the prefaces of our foreign policies, there'd be something more tangible than our unprincipled characters to discuss.

Eh?

[hot enough]

27 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Wrong country...."shame" is a Canadian value...not American.

Shame is a universal human feature. That you so readily acknowledge that it isn't part of the American psyche comes as no surprise. Caveat: there are many Americans who feel shame about what the US has done, continuously, for well over a century, slaughter tens of millions just to position US business to steal the poor's wealth. 

From the beheadings and other equally gruesome methods of death perfected by Americans that started with Native Americans and has continued to this day. Necklaces of Vietnamese ears worn by US troops, beheaded Vietnamese heads with eyes open and a burning cigarette put in each mouth for a "group" picture. 

These same things have been repeated myriad times in all the illegal US invasions.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I am not sure about 70, but I'm aware that the US pulls plenty of shenanigens.  I am definitely not unaware of this. 

Over 70, James, approaching 80.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 
1945 to the Present

by William Blum

Z magazine , June 1999

 

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:

Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:

U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:

After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:

The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:

The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:

Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:

For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Shame is a universal human feature. That you so readily acknowledge that it isn't part of the American psyche comes as no surprise.

 

Wrong...U.S. foreign policy ignores many Americans, and it sure as hell doesn't care about crocodile tears from Canada.

Being a superpower means never having to say your sorry.....just pay 'em off.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Wrong...U.S. foreign policy ignores many Americans, 

Being a superpower means never having to say your sorry.....just pay 'em off.

As I said and you are clarifying, 

Shame is a universal human feature. That you so readily acknowledge that it isn't part of the American psyche comes as no surprise.

Here is some of America's handiwork, this time Reagan used proxies.

********************************************************************************************

THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

part II

CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC

by John Stockwell

a lecture given in October, 1987

John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA's secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell's book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these
things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

Quote

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, hot enough said:

As I said and you are clarifying, 

Shame is a universal human feature. That you so readily acknowledge that it isn't part of the American psyche comes as no surprise.

Here is some of America's handiwork, this time Reagan used proxies.

 

 

USA! USA ! USA !

...Canada is complicit in many U.S. foreign policy adventures..."because it matters so much".

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

USA! USA ! USA !

...Canada is complicit in many U.S. foreign policy adventures..."because it matters so much".

There you have it, James, an American [And if I am not mistaken, a US military member] celebrating American trained and financed proxy US soldiers making America great again:

"They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children."

============

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada loves U.S. foreign policy, until it comes time to pay the cheque....

 

Quote

Freeland praised the U.S. for being the "indispensable nation" for the last 70 years, paying the "lion's share" in blood, treasure, strategic vision and leadership in promoting peace and prosperity. But she said many of the voters in the presidential election cast ballots "animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-foreign-policy-speech-1.4147672

 

[hot enough]

36 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

USA! USA ! USA !

...Canada is complicit in many U.S. foreign policy adventures..."because it matters so much".

"US foreign policy adventures" - now that's a good one for the propaganda meisters. 

Hitler loved US propaganda so much that they fashioned theirs to match the US. The same for US genocides, which provided Hitler with plans for the Final Solution. 

Sadly, yes, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, ... have all been complicit in some of these monstrous US war crimes and terrorism. 

Ans it continues with this latest "terrorist" nonsense, which is just another silly US boogeyman fable.

Edited June 15, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Freeland praised the U.S. for being the "indispensable nation" for the last 70 years

Freeland simply isn't aware of the deep evil of the US.

But who are you to be pointing fingers, B_C, a person who revels, who positively delights in US carnage, US rapes, US murder of children, all US evil?

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

paying the "lion's share" in blood, treasure,

Another gigantic US myth. What Russia put in was far beyond the US. The US made WWII into a US business venture. After the war the US made trillions by stealing the wealth from European colonies. 

The US made WWII into a US propaganda film, lying its way to ever greater "American glory".

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Freeland simply isn't aware of the deep evil of the US.

But who are you to be pointing fingers, B_C, a person who revels, who positively delights in US carnage, US rapes, US murder of children, all US evil?

 

Canada's PM and foreign minister whine mightily at the mere hint of U.S. isolationism in foreign policy.

That would mean Canada and other NATO deadbeats would have to pay their way.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

USA! USA! USA!

 

I agree. America is great. They go to save the oppressed. "the war was a battle against the South Vietnamese people. "

"Kill Anything That Moves". Now where have we heard that before.

Quote

Kill Anything That Moves

 

One soldier, Richard Brummett of A Troop, 1st Squadron, 1st Regimental Cavalry illustrated this philosophy in a letter he sent to then-Defense Secretary Melvin Laird: 

            [my unit] did perform on a regular basis, random murder, rape and pillage upon the Vietnamese civilians in Quang Tin Province…with the full knowledge, consent and participation of our Troop Commander, a Captain David Roessler…
            These incidents included random shelling of villages with 90mm white phosphorus rounds, machine gunning of civilians who had the misfortune to be near when we hit a mine, torture of prisoners, destroying of food and livestock of villagers if we deemed they had an excess, and numerous burnings of villages for no apparent reason. (97) 

Another more specific account came from the aforementioned medic, Jamie Henry. Henry was a member of Company B in the 35th Infantry engaged in what came to be known as the Tet counteroffensive—wherein the U.S. military vowed to prove that it was unfazed by the Tet offensive that nearly brought the U.S. military to its knees. The savagery unleashed in response destroyed much of the country, including many of the cities like Hue where the Vietnamese guerillas had triumphed. Henry’s unit, working in Quang Nam province in the north, was part of this Tet counteroffensive. Having lost five men earlier, the unit entered a hamlet so small it had no name, seeking revenge. Instead of the enemy, however, they found only a few villagers. Some of the soldiers killed livestock (a common tactic, to deprive villagers of their food, and thus force them to cities or refugee camps), while others dragged a teenaged girl into a hut for the usual gang rape. Others rounded up 19 villagers (by now including the girl who had been raped) and it was then that Henry heard his captain repeating the Op Order mentioned above—to kill anything that moved. As Henry described it, four or five of the soldiers surrounded the terrified squatting villagers, and

“opened fire and shot them. There was a lot of flesh and blood going around because the velocity of an M-16 at that close range does a lot of damage.” (126) 
Henry added that this was not an isolated incident; by the end of his tour, he knew of “at least 50 civilians executed by our company and with as little provocation as on [the day of the massacre], not in the heat of battle or from air strikes—deliberate murder.” 

            Jamie Henry tried to speak up about what he’d seen, but he was advised that if he did so while still in Vietnam, he’d be likely to get a bullet in his back. So he waited till he got home, went to the Judge Advocate General in Fort Hood, Texas, but was advised, again, to be silent because otherwise he’d be made to be quiet or even disappear. Even the anti-war magazineRamparts, though it wrote up his story, refrained from publishing it; only Scanlon’s Monthly, in Spring 1970, published it, but it made hardly a ripple. Army investigators did take a 10-page statement from Jamie Henry, but it disappeared like many others. Only the Winter Soldier Investigation of January 1971 finally gave Jamie Henry a forum, and at that event he made clear what Nick Turse asserts again and again: “the executions are the direct result of a policy. It’s the policy that is important” (239). And that policy, as reporter Jonathan Schell noted about Quang Ngai province which he found to be nearly totally destroyed, was summed up simply: the war was a battle against the South Vietnamese people. 

http://splinters-splinters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/kill-anything-that-moves.html

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada spends more time pondering U.S. foreign policy than its own:

 

Quote

“We Canadians can rightly be proud of the role we played in building the postwar order, and the unprecedented peace and prosperity that followed,” Freeland said as she began the most remarkable section of her 4,400-word speech. “Yet even as we celebrate our own part in that project, it’s only fair for us to acknowledge the larger contribution of the United States. For in blood, in treasure, in strategic vision, in leadership, America has paid the lion’s share,” Freeland continued.

“The United States has truly been the indispensable nation, Mr. Speaker. For their unique, seven-decades-long contribution to our shared peace and prosperity, and on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to profoundly thank our American friends.”

Saying nice things about the United States  — “the indispensable nation” —  while in Canada’s House of Commons when there are no visiting American dignitaries present is just not something Canadian politicians tend to do. There has been no shortage of Canadian politicians who, over the years, have sought to boost their own standing with voters by sneering at or laughing at Americans.

“Very rarely have we heard Canadian foreign ministers talk openly and gratefully and enthusiastically about the American contribution to the liberal international order,” Nossal said afterwards. “I’m trying to think of a foreign minister who has spoken as she did today about how grateful Canadians are for the seven decades of contributions that the United States has made in blood and treasure to that order.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/3507725/analysis-the-surprise-in-freelands-foreign-policy-speech-was-her-recognition-of-america-as-an-indispensable-nation/

 

[Argus]

On 6/13/2017 at 10:28 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Can we keep it more or less civil? It's one thing to accuse a country of terrorism.  It's another to start getting personal with other members on here.

Anyway, what do you mean by "war crime" and "terrorism"?

I personally use the ignore feature here for people who are clearly not sane.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

I personally use the ignore feature here for people who are clearly not sane.

This is the first time I've ever used that feature on a forum! 

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

I personally use the ignore feature here for people who are clearly not sane.

Be honest, Argus, you use the ignore feature for people who present facts and evidence that make you uncomfortable.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

good point: more tactical than strategic.  That was what I'm talking about.

Perhaps it is because we allow the executive branch--the administration of the day which only lasts 8 years at most--the greatest power in foreign policy, rather than a more stable body like the Senate.

This particular executive branch is far more confused than most. Trump decries Qatar as a terrorist state and then his secretary of defense inks a multibillion dollar contract for fighter jet sales to them. Oh, and then a couple of US navy ships arrive for joint exercises with the Qatari. Did I mention there's a whopping big US air force base in Qatar? How can anyone not be confused by that kind of foreign policy conflict within the administration?

[Argus]

Just now, Goddess said:

This is the first time I've ever used that feature on a forum! 

I only ever used to use it for trolls, but there are several individuals here who are obsessed with their illogical hatreds and who cannot be engaged in any kind of meaningful or intelligent conversation.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Eh?

What didn't you get exactly?

[CITIZEN_2015]

DOWN WITH

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

USA! USA ! USA !

Edited June 15, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

And while we discuss atrocities by the US and its dreadful foreign policies since world war II lets not forget Russians are not far behind if not a lot worse. They occupied and oppressed half Europe for half a century not to mention crimes they committed in Afghanistan and other parts of the world including recently in Ukraine. And the most recent and equally dreadful their support of murderous regime of Asad in Syria and assisting him with heavy weaponry and hence being a part of mass murder against innocent women and children. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. foreign policy has dominated Canada for many generations.   It is almost impossible to discuss Canadian foreign policy without acknowledging the complete dominance by the United States, even when striving for multilateral alliances with other nations.   Canada's government recognizes the obvious by hosting this historic summary of its emancipation from an imperial empire and growing economic and military embrace of the most powerful nation in the world, all while desperately hoping that the United States does not turn inward towards isolationism.  

 

Quote

...It is my thesis that, over the past 60 years (and it is this period I will examine), Canada’s strategies on the international plane have largely been driven by our concerns about our relationship with the United States. In the drama of Canada’s foreign policy, the U.S. is always the principal actor; at the table where Canadians prepare the ingredients of their foreign policy, the U.S. is always the principal guest; when Canadians assemble to discuss their needs and destiny, the spectre of the U.S. is always there to dominate their thoughts.

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/gotlieb.aspx?lang=eng

 

History is repeating itself as Canada's foreign minister recognizes the importance of U.S. foreign policy for maintaining "world order".

[JamesHackerMP]

21 hours ago, hot enough said:

Hitler loved US propaganda so much that they fashioned theirs to match the US. The same for US genocides, which provided Hitler with plans for the Final Solution. 

Oooooo kkkkkk....I think we've left the realm of having differing opinions and entered that of fiction.  I was talking about what was wrong with US foreign policy.  You seem to have extended that to the character of Americans.  I personally don't care what your opinion of us is personally.  I figured we could talk about what was wrong with US foreign policy, but at least keep it factual. Do you have anything that supports your view that Hitler modeled his final solution after the US, or loved US 'propaganda"?

[hot enough]

21 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Oooooo kkkkkk....I think we've left the realm of having differing opinions and entered that of fiction.  I was talking about what was wrong with US foreign policy.  You seem to have extended that to the character of Americans.  I personally don't care what your opinion of us is personally.  I figured we could talk about what was wrong with US foreign policy, but at least keep it factual. Do you have anything that supports your view that Hitler modeled his final solution after the US, or loved US 'propaganda"?

http://www.cracked.com/article_23252_5-awful-ways-america-influenced-hitler-without-knowing-it.html