Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners - Page 16

Myrddin · January 17, 2003, 18:55

Surely it is that they are by definition not elections?

Dauphin · January 17, 2003, 18:57

The fact that they were part of the USSR's empire since the end of the war makes the whole point about electing the USSR friendly communist governments kind of moot (and obvious).

Its also worth pointing out that all three of those countries had major revolts that were crushed by soviet troops. Given the choice, they would not choose Communism.

Ned · January 17, 2003, 18:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If democratic elections are not free then they are by definition not democratic.

Hah, tell that to Mayor Daley or, for that matter, to every leftist apologist in the world who contends that communism is good and that guys like Stalin are democratically elected.

Of course I know that those elections were rigged. But when we are accused of overthrowing democracy in Iran, it matters whether the elections were rigged in the first place.

I have no idea how much Soviet manipulation went in to rigging the elections in Iran in 1953. But I suspect there was a great deal of it.

Dauphin · January 17, 2003, 19:04

How much soviet manipulation went into other democracies the US overthrew? Guatemala for example? Or is it sufficient to say "it was because of self-interest"?

Ned · January 17, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
How much soviet manipulation went into other democracies the US overthrew? Guatemala for example? Or is it sufficient to say "it was because of self-interest"?

I don't recall any detail about Guatamala. Are you sure we overthrew a democratically elected government - or did we just assist the government to suppress communist revolutionaries?

Dauphin · January 17, 2003, 19:21

United Fruit (a US company) requested the CIA overthrow the avowed capitalist government because they were passing land reforms and wouldn't pay UFCO about $10 million in compensation.

Provost Harrison · January 17, 2003, 19:23

The thing to bear in mind about terrorism in the UK is that we are also far more adjusted to it, especially in terms of counterterrorism. It is something the US needs to start getting used to. Note that our counterterrorism is quite low key and doesn't affect everyday life, whereas the US government seems to have overacted, and moved in the wrong direction with regards to civil liberties, which is a shame...

Ned · January 17, 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
United Fruit (a US company) requested the CIA overthrow the avowed capitalist government because they were passing land reforms and wouldn't pay UFCO about $10 million in compensation.

Well, Sagacious Dolphin, taking land from a foreign private company may be within the rights of a sovereign nation; but taking it without paying for it is an act of war against that company and by extension that company's mother nation. In the case of Guatemala, if the facts are as you state them, I think we had the every right to to resist the uncivilized aggression of the government of Guatemala against Americans.

I understand that Britain has certain countries in Africa under economic sanction because of similar uncivilized actions against British subjects. If Britain had any balls, it would declare war against the barbarous regimes oppressing and killing British subjects.

DuncanK · January 17, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Why are American so different from the rest of the west?

Simple... Money.

The average American has about the same amount of money as the average person in the other industrialized country. The wealth is, in general, more unequally distributed, so we probably have more poor people here. That's not to say that poor people don't realize the importance of money.

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
Since we accept that fact, our society, economies, and even politics have moved to reflect that ideology.

Unfortutely in favor of those with property.

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

The rest of the Western world has not accepted the fact that money is the source of all power (good and evil) because they do not want to face the ugliness of the truth. They therefore wallow in their patheticness of morals and ethics... ideals that have nothing to do with politics.

How can money do good without ethics? Nevermind, I'm sure I won't be interested in the rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

When the rest of the world declines (and they have) the offer to become more like Americans then they have elected to become, or stay, more ethical and more poverish. Oh, well... your loss.

Your assuming your policies are the best, which they are not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher

I think that America is so diveresed and so driven by money, free trade, and humanitarian issues that the rest of the world becomes blinded to the actuall ways that make us the same as every other country. Such oversights lead to thread like this, and to the bettering of America and American culture becoming dominant the world over...

Why are you even claiming now that the US is interested in humanitarian issues? You just said that we only care about money.

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Well, Sagacious Dolphin, taking land from a foreign private company may be within the rights of a sovereign nation; but taking it without paying for it is an act of war against that company and by extension that company's mother nation. In the case of Guatemala, if the facts are as you state them, I think we had the every right to to resist the uncivilized aggression of the government of Guatemala against Americans.

a) No it isn't. Otherwise we'd have a war every time a court decision went against a foreign country

b) The US didn't declare war against Guatemala, they just bombed it and then lied about it. And United Fruit had violated enough laws in Guatemala to justify completely expropriating them. They'd bought politicians, judges, policemen, etc.

c) How much of United Fruit was owned by the upper echelons of the CIA and the US administration at that point in time? Take a guess...

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Since the fall of the USSR, we are much more tolerant of elected communist governments. Witness the current struggle in Venezuela. Despited the chaos, we have stayed out of it.

a) Yeah right. You almost got caught with your hand in the cookie jar already (in the attempted coup)

b) The Venezelan government isn't communist by any stretch of the imagination. They're about as leftist as France is.

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 00:36

1954 caused the deaths, over the next 20 years, of ~150 000 Guatemalan civilians, murdered by right-wing death squads for voicing any criticism of their government. Not a peep out of the US. Where were the CIA planes that had bombed Arbenza and his democratic socialists?

DuncanK · January 18, 2003, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Well, Sagacious Dolphin, taking land from a foreign private company may be within the rights of a sovereign nation; but taking it without paying for it is an act of war against that company and by extension that company's mother nation. In the case of Guatemala, if the facts are as you state them, I think we had the every right to to resist the uncivilized aggression of the government of Guatemala against Americans.

I don't think many Americans would support war against a nation who took property from one of our companies. If they invest there they take a risk. Our government may regularly bail out companies when they make poor investments, but Americans only support it when they feel its neccessary for the economy.

TCO · January 18, 2003, 01:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
1954 caused the deaths, over the next 20 years, of ~150 000 Guatemalan civilians, murdered by right-wing death squads for voicing any criticism of their government. Not a peep out of the US. Where were the CIA planes that had bombed Arbenza and his democratic socialists?

Sounds like a very large figure. You sure?

Anyway...I expect the Vietnamese did more damage to their people...

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 01:11

150 000 is the one that's mostly used. Very bloody stuff went on there for a long time. Similar numbers "disappeared" in Chile too...

DuncanK · January 18, 2003, 01:13

I just realized that my last post was short.

I should be clear to say that the America people would not support a war against a nation who took property from one or our companies. However, the government might desire a war if that company had enough power. Then the government would try to create sympathy for that war. The real reason for the war would be the loss of property.

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 01:16

I agree that almost nobody would be on side if a US president walked in front of the TV cameras and said "They took stuff from rich ******* A, so we've got to bomb the living daylights out of them"...

But there's always a Gulf of Tonkin or USS Maine he can lie about/make up entirely...

DuncanK · January 18, 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I agree that almost nobody would be on side if a US president walked in front of the TV cameras and said "They took stuff from rich ******* A, so we've got to bomb the living daylights out of them"...

But there's always a Gulf of Tonkin or USS Maine he can lie about/make up entirely...

Yeah, too bad.

TCO · January 18, 2003, 01:21

I don't think we should go to war over a nationalization, either. (Of course...we should cut off funds to the IMF and places like that too.) This deal may have had more to do with the Cold War than fruit company. And what did we do? Don't remember troops going there.

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 01:24

CIA planes (I didn't realise the CIA was budgeted stuff like real bombers until I read about this when I was a teenager) went over and bombed the living bejeezus out of Guatemala city and any loyalist army positions they could find. Needless to say, the rebels won...

DuncanK · January 18, 2003, 01:25

Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

notyoueither · January 18, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

So far almost all cases cited have had more to do with the cold war than with the interests of any single corporation.

Guatamala? What do you think United Fruit cried to Senators and the President? I don't think they said that the girl scouts had just nationalized them. More likely they whispered 'Communist' and got what they wanted. Speaking of cold war reasoning...

notyoueither · January 18, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
1953? That was ages ago, I hear you cry. Well, let's take a more up to date example of US meddling:

In the early 1990s, Afghanistan was ruled by a pro-soviet state. To get rid of this state, and purely to protect US interests, Britain and the US set about arming and training a fundamental isalmic group known as the Taliban who had agreed to fight Russia and force them out of the middle east. The Taliban's grab for power was succesful, largely thanks to Britain and America. So you'd think Osama (affiliated with the Taliban) would be greatful. Not so, since Saudi Arabia and George Bushi Snr. had prevented Bin Laden from taking out Saddam Hussein, even after American troops had trained Osama for the task. That's right folks, there are no terrorist links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bin Laden hates Saddam. Bin Laden wants Iraq to be an extremeist islamic state, much like Afghanistan. Incidentally, the members of the ruling party before the Taliban (I forget their name), whom America had helped to turf out of power then went on to form the Northern Alliance, whom America just helped back into power. Well done again.

You are horribly, inaccurately, incorrect. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union (remember that happened later on in 89 and 90).

As far as acting purely to protect US interests... I think that the residents of former Warsaw Pact countries would spare a blessing for the policies that freed them from the grasp of the Soviet system. Hell, many of the residents of the former Soviet Union would chime in as a chorus.

The short answer is that the US (and others) acted on the assumption that the Soviets must be foiled at almost any price. Send some Stingers to some muslims on Jihad? No problem. Like Churchill vs the Nazis, anyone who would fight the Soviets were to be supported. Support the Mujahideen? You bet! Were the Taliban the only part of the Mujahideen? Nope. Even if they were, what of it? The US and her allies sought to thwart the most heinous system of government ever known on this planet. They sought allies in dark corners. So what? So former allies are now enemies? Go figure, when has that ever happened before...

I'd much rather be facing the possibility of some random fanatic blowing up a building than some unstable person coming to power in what was the former Soviet Union and 'pushing the button'. How about you?

DuncanK · January 18, 2003, 02:22

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

So far almost all cases cited have had more to do with the cold war than with the interests of any single corporation.

Guatamala? What do you think United Fruit cried to Senators and the President? I don't think they said that the girl scouts had just nationalized them. More likely they whispered 'Communist' and got what they wanted. Speaking of cold war reasoning...

The Cold War categorizes these events, true. I'm not sure what your point is, unless its just that.

Ramo · January 18, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Well, Sagacious Dolphin, taking land from a foreign private company may be within the rights of a sovereign nation; but taking it without paying for it is an act of war against that company and by extension that company's mother nation. In the case of Guatemala, if the facts are as you state them, I think we had the every right to to resist the uncivilized aggression of the government of Guatemala against Americans.

In Guatemala's agrarian reform where the land owned by United Fruit was nationalized and distributed to the landless peasants UF had been screwing over (stealing from in every respect except in terms of legality) for the previous 50 years through controlling the state machinery - killing strikers, and so forth, the owners of UF were offered compensation by the same amount of money they had declared their assets in Guatemala were worth through their tax procedure.

notyoueither · January 18, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

The Cold War categorizes these events, true. I'm not sure what your point is, unless its just that.

That is exactly my point. How hard is it for a corporation to paint a nationalising government as communist at the height of the red scare? Not hard, not hard at all.

Ned · January 18, 2003, 03:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

In Guatemala's agrarian reform where the land owned by United Fruit was nationalized and distributed to the landless peasants UF had been screwing over (stealing from in every respect except in terms of legality) for the previous 50 years through controlling the state machinery - killing strikers, and so forth, the owners of UF were offered compensation by the same amount of money they had declared their assets in Guatemala were worth through their tax procedure.

We overthrew a government over a tax cheater?

Kinda hard to believe. I'll bet the president at the time would listen to requests for aid the same way Clinton did, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

Who was the obviously corrupt president?

notyoueither · January 18, 2003, 03:37

No. You overthrew a government over bananas, but only to save them from becoming communist bananas.

KrazyHorse · January 18, 2003, 05:47

What I really want to know is: what about the plantains?

Dauphin · January 18, 2003, 10:18

Guatemala is the very definition of Banana Republic.