Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (13817)	11/17/2004 1:07:41 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

> Well, no, what I said isn't a myth. We simply don't at core have imperialistic designs on the world < That's quite a bold assertion, but not born out by history. The US hasn't always been the obvious actor in colonial enterprises or government insurrection but US fingerprints are all over the world. Imperialism / colonialism has often used other rational as its excuse. The Crusades. The War On Communism. Saigon / Vietnam over decades, Angola (Kissinger/US supported South Africa and lied to Congress), Greece (1940's), Korea, Guatemala (1954), Chile (Kissinger/Reagan supported dictators "you need to do your atrocities quickly" - paraphrased, H. Kissinger), Afghanistan (hey we gave OBL practice against the Russians), not to mention supporting Batista in Cuba, Duvalier in Hati, Iran (Shaw of), Nicaragua (Ollie North), Grenada, Panama, Iraq (supporting Husayn!), Iraq (destroying Husayn! and grabbing oil), not to mention long campaigns of military support in the middle east including billions in military equipment give aways (40B in documented give aways in the past 10 years but much more yet to be declassified). Well... it goes on and on and on. Imperialism / Colonialism? Perhaps the US isn't actually on the ground running Colonial Britan era colonies - the US instead is the remote control push button colonial, imperialistic, power. ITs the economy, stupid, is all one needs to know. The War on Terror, particularly in this latest "front" created by the neoconservative - or perhaps better called neocolonial - administration, is just the latest example.

To: Dan B. who wrote (13817)	11/17/2004 4:59:26 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

I understood you perfectly, but you missed the point I figuratively made. America is as much bent on Imperialism as any nation has ever been. It is just that we'd like to feel self-righteous about it. The order of preference is along the lines of, personal pay offs (as to Afghan tribal heads), if that is not enough economic "aid" or sanctions, if not then coupe de eta or assassinations, and only then direct military intervention fallowed by puppet regimes. It would be a very expensive proposition to sell Cola at gun point, don't you think? Like any rational being, we use as little force as we must, but the intentions remain the same. (see my post today on "Economic Hitmen" Message 20775999 ) There are 3 ways to empire building and colonization (and we have made improvements on them): (1) The Roman Way (2) The Persian Way (3) The Viking Way What most people seem to recognize is the Roman way; military occupation and heavy handed tactics to control countries. The Persian way is to prop up rulers who are loyal to the central command. They will pay taxes and provide support with external affairs but are otherwise free in their internal matters. It is a confederation model. The Viking way on the other hand relies on trade backed by swift and bloody military raids but minimal occupation. You really should study the Vikings more to properly appreciate the American emphasis on "trade". You can dig up some of the discussions on this here Message 18795689 and in the posts that fallows over the next two days. As with the Vikings, the military might is essential to the success of "trade" deals. It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more. Now one has to wonder what is the use for such vast military expansion if the intentions are as pure as you claim? Sun Tzu