[oppose_obama]

Money is important


Edit: @grassroots, Are you honestly saying America doesn't have military bases inside its own bases? I'm assuming your not because that would be a fucking stupid thing to say.

[grassroots1]

There are no foreign military bases on our land, and yet we have military bases in many foreign nations.

That was a bit unclear, I edited it.

[Decky]

(1) Is it acceptable to you for America to be remotely bombing (for years now) countries we are not in a state of war with, and against their sovereign wills?
(2) Is it acceptable to be killing merely suspected combatants without much proof?
(3) Is it acceptable that there are hundreds of known innnocent civilian deaths from this every year?
(4) Is it a problem that the average American knows very little or nothing about 1-3?

Americans love killing, Igor. Do you think this list of questions will turn anyone against drone usage?

To be fair to them they are equal opportunities killers, have you seen the gun crime figures? It isn't as if they only kill foreigners.

[Plutus Aurelius]

So you admit that for Obama and the drone strikes it's only about money? Good to know and noted. You're really just a closet Obama hater. Probably explains your posting history.

I'm not a blind supporter of Obama. I have criticized him for many, many positions he's taken since 2009, this is just one. But being an ideologue yourself, you probably can't fathom that.

Here's another indicator of just how low the US has sunk.....only in opposition to a Dem president does the Republican controlled Congress call Obama out for his 'license to kill'. No way these rw blowhards would give two shakes if a Repub was in office doing same. And if Obama wasn't greasing these American terrorists illegally, the same aholes would be calling him weak on national defense. Same old tune.

Congress Wants to See Obama's "License to Kill"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ling-memos

[Ignite]

But being an ideologue yourself.

Nope.

I'm not a blind supporter of Obama. I have criticized him for many, many positions he's taken since 2009, this is just one.

Nope. You haven't on this forum.

Here's another indicator of just how low the US has sunk.....only in opposition to a Dem president does the Republican controlled Congress call Obama out for his 'license to kill'. No way these rw blowhards would give two shakes if a Repub was in office doing same. And if Obama wasn't greasing these American terrorists illegally, the same aholes would be calling him weak on national defense. Same old tune.

Congress Wants to See Obama's "License to Kill"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ling-memos

So you're against the drones but for the drones? Right on Plutus Aurelius. You don't have to hide anymore. You're a closet GOP member. We get it. You don't have to put up the act of violently hating the right anymore.

[oppose_obama]

Plautus its politics it goes both ways. I don't see code pink or other left groups protesting Obama the way the anti war movement protested bush.

[Joe Liberty]

Plautus its politics it goes both ways. I don't see code pink or other left groups protesting Obama the way the anti war movement protested bush.

Exactly! Repubs and Dems are both being hypocrites. But that's not exactly a news flash.

[Plutus Aurelius]

Plautus its politics it goes both ways. I don't see code pink or other left groups protesting Obama the way the anti war movement protested bush.

Except Obama didn't invade/destroy an entire country, and cause literally hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. He's illegally greasing individual terrorists carrying US passports.

Sorry pal, those lame apples/oranges arguments don't fly.

[Ignite]

Except Obama didn't invade/destroy an entire country, and cause literally hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. He's illegally greasing individual terrorists carrying US passports.

Wow, and you miss the old days of fighting terrorism!! Welcome to the GOP Plutus. Romney will appreciate your vote!

[Fasces]

You guys are talking about American "defense" initiatives without recognizing that our hegemonic status is entirely offensive. We do not have military bases in dozens of foreign nations, and no foreign bases in our own, because we are defending ourselves. We have them because we are imposing our will on those other nations. There are countless examples of military, economic, and political imperialism on the part of the united states designed expressly to ensure that leaders friendly to US interests (especially the interests of companies with influence in US politics) will be in power. This is not defense and I think you should think again Fasces if you believe that US foreign policy is actually designed for the US' own protection.

It absolutely is. The United States, in terms of defense policy, must be considered an island nation. Canada lacks the population to effectively threaten the United States, and Mexico lacks the geography to rival American industrial capacity or agricultural output. It will also never effectively challenge the United States. There are a multitude of other geographical reasons why the United States is the premier continental power in North America, which you can read in a decent (not perfect) overview here. As a result, the only potential source for an American antagonist to manifest itself is overseas - in particular, Iraq, Siberia, China, and central Europe.

As a result, the United States should be considered a maritime nation, and its defense a maritime endeavor. This is why the United States Navy and Marine force has historically and today played such a prominent role in American defense, and why the United States Department of State and of Defense has historically concerned itself with freedom of the seas and protection of maritime trading routes. These require, and have always required, the presence of overseas base where American ships could refuel (in the past) and restock (today). This is why these bases initially developed.

The American military establishment, however, realized that other nations could potentially harness their resources, and used them in a combined effort to harm American naval hegemony. Donitz in particular was very good at this for a few devastating months during WWII. As a result, the United States turned to a proactive effort of containing threats before they gained sufficient power to challenge American naval hegemony, the loss of which would eventually challenge American territorial integrity. This is manifested in American insistence on naval tonnage treaties in the early 20th century, the creation of NATO, and continued investments in maintaining, expanding, and developing a blue water navy. The logical conclusion of containment, however, is to prevent offensive regimes from starting up in the first place - leading to the policy of American interventionism you see today. However, the fundamental goal, even in these campaigns, is preservation of the system that ensures the defense of the American homeland.

The concern is not that pronounced regional conflict might occur in the absence of an American military presence, but that such conflict may be resolved with the creation of an antagonistic regime - as seen in Iran. Now, while Iran is powerful regionally, it cannot develop the infrastructure necessary to challenge the United States without first capturing the resource capital available in Mesopotamia. This is why the United States is concerned with Iraq, first and foremost, and concerned with keeping it outside of Iranian influence. The goal is to prevent the antagonistic regime in Iran from developing sufficiently so as to challenge American interests and its defense.

Were Cubans pleased for their stability under the US-backed Batista? The Philippines pleased with our invasion and imposition of interests? Haiti? Venezuela? Guatemala? Indonesia? Vietnam? Laos?

Nobody, and certainly not I, is pretending this is being done for them - whatever the state propaganda may be telling you.

The aim was to ensure the defense of the American state. In Cuba, to prevent a Soviet beachhead from potentially threatening our territorial integrity. In Haiti, to remove European incentive toward intervention, maintaining America as the hegemonic power on the continent. In Venezuela, there was no such intervention in the 20th century, so I am unsure what you are referring too. Chavez lives his life out, more or less, and the United States tolerates it because he poses no threat.

Nobility is secondary to the defense of the country, and nobody, outside politicians, pretend otherwise.

Furthermore there is no reason that in the absence of US presence, a region like South America would suddenly start conflicts with each other or enter an arms race. The aggressors here are the imperial powers, to call them the peacemakers is a perversion of the situation

South America has been peaceful for the last hundred years, more or less, since the establishment of the United States as a hyperpower in the Americas.

I dare you to say they were peaceful in the 19th. Or that there are no longer any territorial or political disputes on that continent.

There are no foreign military bases on our land, and yet we have military bases in many foreign nations.

False. All NORAD installations are under joint Canadian and American control. The Cheyenne Mountain Facility, where NORAD is based, is led jointly by an American and Canadian.

The Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico has a permanent German presence.

There is a British garrison of 1,000 personnel at the Pentagon. There are also British training programs at Fort Bragg.

[Rainbow Crow]

Regarding Japan, they have one of the worst national debt situations combined with what is probably the most gray population in the world. A "rearmed Japan" doesn't seem too likely to me, though we will probably see some small increases in their military spending.

[grassroots1]

The logical conclusion of containment, however, is to prevent offensive regimes from starting up in the first place - leading to the policy of American interventionism you see today. However, the fundamental goal, even in these campaigns, is preservation of the system that ensures the defense of the American homeland.

I think where we differ is that if this was the original goal, it is no longer the goal. If we were genuinely interested in defense, we would not be forcing IMF loans down the throats of developing nations, forcing them to meet unreasonable trade standards, we would not be instating leaders that blatantly rule with an iron fist and preserve the interests of American corporations. It was argued that ousting Arbenz in Guatemala was a containment effort against the Soviet Union, but in reality Arbenz was disconnected from the Soviets and was pursuing a nationalistic platform, not a socialist one.

Beyond these ambitious development and economic programs, his biggest dream was to push agrarian reform in Guatemala. In his opinion, he saw Guatemala's unequal land distribution in a predominantly rural society as the main obstacle to economic development. He saw this latifundio system as a backward legacy of colonial times and justified his project by arguing that it was the only way to create a real capitalistic society. He said that the country needed "an agrarian reform which puts an end to the latifundios and the semi-feudal practices, giving the land to thousands of peasants, raising their purchasing power and creating a great internal market favorable to the development of domestic industry."

...

"They have used the pretext of anti-communism.The truth is very different. The truth is to be found in the financial interests of the fruit company and the other US monopolies which have invested great amounts of money in Latin America and fear that the example of Guatemala would be followed by other Latin countries.[...] I was elected by a majority of the people of Guatemala, but I have had to fight under difficult conditions. The truth is that the sovereignty of a people cannot be maintained without the material elements to defend it.[...] I took over the presidency with great faith in the democratic system, in liberty and the possibility of achieving economic independence for Guatemala. I continue to believe that this program is just. I have not violated my faith in democratic liberties, in the independence of Guatemala and in all the good which is the future of humanity..[...]" (quoted by Schlessinger & Kinzer, 1990: 200)

http://www.unitedfruit.org/arbenz.htm

His crime was opposing the United Fruit Company and their holdings, not threatening US defense. The United States government is not a self-interested entity that is committed to its own survival and defense, first and foremost it is a vehicle of business. Even for people who see a positive side to our imperial status such as yourself, our current government is still not acting in our national interest.

In Venezuela, there was no such intervention in the 20th century, so I am unsure what you are referring too.

I'm sorry, I was thinking of the Iran contra scandal which was Nicaragua. That's embarrassing.

Nobility is secondary to the defense of the country, and nobody, outside politicians, pretend otherwise.

National defense should not extend beyond a nation's borders. When it does, it is aggression, not defense. This is the same perverse logic as calling the invasion of Iraq, a "preemptive strike," a form of defense. It is not, it is outright aggression to, as you yourself admitted, protect the interests of the American empire by preventing consolidation of power in another region.

South America has been peaceful for the last hundred years, more or less, since the establishment of the United States as a hyperpower in the Americas.

Many if not most countries in South America have seen dictatorial regimes as a result of US intervention. Again if this is the kind of peace and stability you're talking about, it can hardly be viewed as a positive.

False. All NORAD installations are under joint Canadian and American control. The Cheyenne Mountain Facility, where NORAD is based, is led jointly by an American and Canadian.

The Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico has a permanent German presence.

There is a British garrison of 1,000 personnel at the Pentagon. There are also British training programs at Fort Bragg.

None of these are foreign bases.

[Fasces]

If we were genuinely interested in defense, we would not be forcing IMF loans down the throats of developing nations, forcing them to meet unreasonable trade standards, we would not be instating leaders that blatantly rule with an iron fist and preserve the interests of American corporations.

This example is not about defense. This is about American trade policy, the preservation of the Breton Woods system, and maintaining the post-war international regime. The aim is to make war too expensive to be a viable alternative to peace, even by antagonists. Allowing nations to subvert the international system defeats the purpose. This is not solely an American endeavor, however. The European Union is as much to blame, and China seems to be willing to join the WTO rather than stand against it it.

It was argued that ousting Arbenz in Guatemala was a containment effort against the Soviet Union, but in reality Arbenz was disconnected from the Soviets and was pursuing a nationalistic platform, not a socialist one.

Castro was also divorced from the Soviet Union, until he wasn't. His platform was nationalistic, until it wasn't. Arbenz was a top lieutenant of Arevalo, who was certainly a communist. I think the United States had justified concerns about the leftist inclinations of Arbenz, and his potential to turn toward COMINTERN.

The United States government is not a self-interested entity that is committed to its own survival and defense, first and foremost it is a vehicle of business.

It is both. That is what democratic pluralism is. The Americans are a race of merchants, and their politicians do their best to enable that. In any case, the development of American wealth is our national interest. Our national interest is not defined by the welfare of a Guatemalan worker, but by the wealth, quality of life, and security of the United States toward its citizens. Or rather, this being a democratic society, our national interest is what the people decide it to be, and the people have decided, time and time again, that the welfare of foreigners is not a national priority for American policy makers - be they Guatemalan fruit pickers, or Pakistani schoolchildren shot down by automated drones; they are an acceptable sacrifice.

I don't necessarily agree. Loss of innocent life should be avoided as much as possible. I don't necessarily disagree. I would rather some collateral damage to paralysis by inaction.

National defense should not extend beyond a nation's borders. When it does, it is aggression, not defense. This is the same perverse logic as calling the invasion of Iraq, a "preemptive strike," a form of defense. It is not, it is outright aggression to, as you yourself admitted, protect the interests of the American empire by preventing consolidation of power in another region.

When a national security policy fails, people die. The idea of national defense ending at our borders led to Pearl Harbor. It is a naive position, and isolationism has no place in our national discourse, nor should it.

The war against Iraq was not a preemptive strike, geopolitically. It was an attempt to install a US friendly regime in a region that could potentially threaten American interests if it were unified under an antagonist. The failure was in not realizing that while Iraq was antagonistic toward the USA, it was also antagonistic against other American rivals in the region, and thus posed no such threat. Currently, Iraq seems to be warming its relationship with Iran, so I'd call that war a failure, and an expensive one at that. Bush's war was ultimately an ideological crusade, Wilsonian in nature, and I will not defend it. The American government should have handed power over to any number of officers within the Republican Guard, with certain conditions, and left it at that.

Many if not most countries in South America have seen dictatorial regimes as a result of US intervention. Again if this is the kind of peace and stability you're talking about, it can hardly be viewed as a positive.

Many of these dictatorial regimes have been for more positive in developing national infrastructure, fixing the income divide, or helping the poor than the dysfunctional oligarchic democracies they replaced. Democracy in South America was not always positive, and the Brazilians and Argentines will be the first to tell you that dictatorship was not always negative.

None of these are foreign bases.

Please define foreign base.

[Gletkin]

Arevalo, who was certainly a communist.

He called himself a "spirtual socialist".
The PGT was a junior partner of his coalition, they didn't call the shots.

I think the United States had justified concerns about the leftist inclinations of Arbenz, and his potential to turn toward COMINTERN.

What we did was to replace the "maybe" of a center-left democratic government with decades of "definately" pro-Soviet or Guevarist guerrilla insurgency..themselves direct responses to the string of right-wing dictators we kept supporting.

[Fasces]

He called himself a "spirtual socialist".
The PGT was a junior partner of his coalition, they didn't call the shots.

So... he leaned red?

What we did was to replace the "maybe" of a center-left democratic government with decades of "definately" pro-Soviet or Guevarist guerrilla insurgency..themselves direct responses to the string of right-wing dictators we kept supporting.

And when did this guerrilla movement allow the Soviets to establish a military and nuclear presence in Guatemala?

[Gletkin]

So... he leaned red?

Mitterand "leaned red" too.....don't remember much of a "Cold War" with France.

And when did this guerrilla movement allow the Soviets to establish a military and nuclear presence in Guatemala?

When did Arevalo?

[grassroots1]

Dlt

[grassroots1]

Arbenz fraternized with Soviet exiles and people with socialistic leanings, he was not at all an instrument of the USSR. Furthermore if we're being honest Cuba only openly aligned itself with the USSR after the pay of pigs, in response to US aggression.

I'll get to the rest of your post later Fasces, when I have access to a computer.

[Fasces]

When did Arevalo?

Arevalo was not removed by the United States. We are talking about his Minister of Defense, Arbenz, a man who had killed off the right-wing opposition present in Arevalo's administration.

[Gletkin]

It was Arevalo you had claimed "was certainly a communist".

But ok, when did Arbenz?

EDIT:
When did he "kill off rightist opposition" for that matter as well?