Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
Yes, conservatives like to view our country with rose colored glasses. I suggest you read Naomi Kline's book "Disaster Capitalism".
|
Let's see.... Naomi Klein... Ah,
here she is. Her parents were war resisters who ran to Canada. Her mother was a feminist. Her grandparents were communists. Her husband is Avi Lewis.
He is the host of the Al Jazeera English show!
Ok, so what does she say that I might, in my most wildest dreams give a flying F about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
From the very first, trade was an essential part of American business. We developed fast schooners to out run the pirates.
|
We did not invent trade. It is a practice that has been encouraged for thousands of years. And of course, pirates should be run out and were, not just by us, but other countries as well. They were a thorn in the side of all countries who participated in evil activities like trading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
We took over the Spanish colonies to enhance our trading interests. We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish American war against the will of the Phillipinos and had a nasty war with them to show them who was boss.
|
You are mischaracterizing history again. On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shurman Commission
Should our power by any fatality be withdrawn, the commission believes that the government of the Philippines would speedily lapse into anarchy, which would excuse, if it did not necessitate, the intervention of other powers and the eventual division of the islands among them. Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable.
|
That was the sentiment of the time, and after over 100 years you can monday morning quarterback it to your own political leanings. Which you do, but at least be accurate. You should at least recognize that from the 1400s through the 1900s the western world was in an expansionist mode. The US and many other countries were participating in a land grab because, yes, having territory in strategic parts of the world, or containing valuable resources is beneficial to any nation. We were certainly not the only nation doing it. In addition... If we free a country from an oppressive government, then of course, the country is without a government. That leaves a power vacuum. A responsible nation becomes responsible for territory that it frees. If it's able to stand on its own, leave it alone. If not, adopt it until they are able to stand on their own unless joining is beneficial to both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
We got rid of the elected leader of Iran and installed the Shaw, to control the oil supply.
|
Are you talking about the Iran/Iraq war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
We have bombed Panama and Grenada, messed around in central America.
|
In Grenada, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, a Communist hard-liner backed by the Grenadian Army, had deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule, then had Bishop killed. Then there was also the presence of Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000-foot airstrip in Grenada to allow military transport planes loaded with arms from Cuba to be transferred to Central American insurgents. Plus there were 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George's School of Medicine in Grenada. But you say forget all this. It was for economic reasons only.
In Panama, we were going after Noriega. If you have an economic case for that, go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
We set up NAFTA....
|
NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. All three of them promoted it. We did not force it on the Mexicans. Salinas is an adult, and was even president of Mexico. I think he's a big boy. If it worked out badly for Mexico then it's his responsibility. Some say it worked out good for Mexico because poverty rates fell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
The list goes on and on.
|
Yes, and you've shown how your Socialist-Red colored glasses color your view of the world. You ignore the facts surrounding each and every instance you cited and substitute America's evil thirst for money. I thought I warned you about revisionist history. If America is so hungry for economic gain, I'd like to know, why, oh why, didn't Bush have the Iraqis pay for the upgrades above and way beyond repairing what was destroyed from the war, security and training? They certainly could afford it, and it was all in their best interest.
Honestly.... Naomi Klein???