Arafat's guerrillas shot 7; world silent.

[Ned]

Actually, I also nominate GePap for the Barbarian award. This will be given annually to the poster who best justifies Barbarianism, which includes any act of expropriation without compensation by one people from another.

Hall of Fame entries already include Julius Ceasar for his conquest of Gaul, Giseric the Vandal for his sacking of Rome, Eric the Red on behalf of all Viking plunders, and Elizabeth I for sponsoring the Pirates of the Carribean.

Can GePeP be elected to the Hall of Fame? Only history will tell.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

The history of US "Imperialism" in Latin America is closely tied to the protection of US lives and property in the concerned states. The killing of any US citizen or the confiscation without compensation of a US citizen's property is an act of war. If any for a second doubt this, consider the act of piracy. Is piracy legitimate if conducted by a sovereign?

If you say yes, then I give you Jefferson's war against the Pasha of Tripoli.

Oh what a load of BS...

EVEN YOUR OWN SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS ADMIT TO DECADES OF U.S. IMPERIALISM IN LATIN AMERICA!!!

read ANY decent history book about latin american history written by ANY U.S. author even, to realize you are totally absolutely tremendously wrong. But you most likely have read NONE, you're just spouting whatever biased idea comes to your head without even a speck of necessary historical reference to back you up.

[Oerdin]

Zen: Chill out and don't resort to the personal insults. Argue ideas and don't flame posters. Besides Ned is educated he just has a different take sometimes.

[Az]

meksikan peopel are scam.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Oh what a load of BS...

EVEN YOUR OWN SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS ADMIT TO DECADES OF U.S. IMPERIALISM IN LATIN AMERICA!!!

read ANY decent history book about latin american history written by ANY U.S. author even, to realize you are totally absolutely tremendously wrong. But you most likely have read NONE, you're just spouting whatever biased idea comes to your head without even a speck of necessary historical reference to back you up.

Master Zen, I went to private Catholic schools until college. I attended school before the massive "revision" of history that seems to have taken place in the '70s and '80s.

The history I was taught and even remember is dramatically at odds with that being taught in school today. The histories generally agree on the basic facts. But today's histories are dramatically different in their 'opinion" content.

BTW, I do admit that even the history I was taught by the good nuns was extremely biased. For example, we studied Roman history primarily from the point of view of how each Emperor persecuted the Christians or not. I was astounded to find, after reading history by non Catholic authors, that Diocletian was considered to be a good emperor for restoring order. I was astounded because I had learned that Diocletian was "evil" for instituting the absolute worst persecutions in Roman history.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Zen: Chill out and don't resort to the personal insults. Argue ideas and don't flame posters. Besides Ned is educated he just has a different take sometimes.

Oerdin, Zen really doesn't bother me for some reason. I find it almost amuzing how easy it is to get him, or most of the left, to lose their cool with my meataxe, anti-left trolls.

Only Spiffor seems to keep his cool.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap: A great deal of the US involvement in Latin America for the first 30 years of the 20th century was directly to support US owned businesses who were underthreat from Latin governments and/or revolutionaries.

and what was the excuse for the 50 years before that and the 70 years since?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


Oerdin, Zen really doesn't bother me for some reason. I find it almost amuzing how easy it is to get him, or most of the left, to lose their cool with my meataxe, anti-left trolls.

Only Spiffor seems to keep his cool.

I don't lose my cool despite it appears I do


so, now that you are admitting to trolling instead of actually making meaninful arguments, I think your debate is quite literally flushed down the toilet, gives me even less a reason for continuing it.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Master Zen
and what was the excuse for the 50 years before that and the 70 years since?

If you'd like to discuss specific actions then give a specific example. My people spend an entire quarter exploring individual actions and still only scratch the surface. Still, we can try.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel
meksikan peopel are scam.

salud

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Master Zen, I went to private Catholic schools until college. I attended school before the massive "revision" of history that seems to have taken place in the '70s and '80s.

The history I was taught and even remember is dramatically at odds with that being taught in school today. The histories generally agree on the basic facts. But today's histories are dramatically different in their 'opinion" content.

BTW, I do admit that even the history I was taught by the good nuns was extremely biased. For example, we studied Roman history primarily from the point of view of how each Emperor persecuted the Christians or not. I was astounded to find, after reading history by non Catholic authors, that Diocletian was considered to be a good emperor for restoring order. I was astounded because I had learned that Diocletian was "evil" for instituting the absolute worst persecutions in Roman history.

Then what really surprises me is why you haven't bothered to get your facts right on US imperialism. I'd suggest you get some books on it. Believe it or not, you'll find out the US has been far less than righteous in its endevours.

But...since you're only trolling I assume that deep inside you know it already

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If you'd like to discuss specific actions then give a specific example. My people spend an entire quarter exploring individual actions and still only scratch the surface. Still, we can try.

"The United States and Imperialism" by Frank Ninkovich

it's worth the read

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Michael the Great, the left seems consistently opposed to the United States government opposing nationalization of US companies without compensation by radical elements in Latin America. The left seems to have some ideology that US companies "exploit" (as in "steal") both the resources and the labor of any country in which its invests.

You mean bribing corrupt officials you helped install in the first place to give you below-market contracts for mineral rights, land, etc. isn't exploitation?

For this reason, the left almost advocates that US companies be nationalized, of course, without compensation because of this evil exploitation.

There should definitely be compensation, in magnitude to the theft/exploitation being carried out. Sometimes, mere nationalization of the physical assets isn't adequate compensation.

So when United States government objects to this, it is of course wrong, because such nationalization itself was correct from the left's point-of-view, and America's intervention to protect its citizens property is nothing but naked "imperialism."

Exactly. "Protecting citizens property" is not a valid reason to invade a country, kill civilians, destroy third-party property, depose existing sovereign governments, etc. Sue 'em, or impose trade sanctions, yes. Invasion, no.

In a nutshell, though, US companies no more exploit the resources and labor of Latin American countries than they exploit resources and labor of America.

US companies operating in the US are subject to Federal and state laws, the judiciary of the US and it's states, and the parties affected (citizens) are enfranchised to vote, so they have a remedy be electing legislatures and executive officials that can regulate abusive behavior and enforce those regulations. Until quite recently (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act being the main impediment), US laws did not apply to US companies' actions overseas. In many cases, they still don't, or the laws are effectively subverted by merely creating wholly owned subsidiaries chartered offshore.

FCPA isn't even a real impediment - you just can't knowingly bribe a foreign official. Nothing says you can't hire a relative of that official as a high-priced consultant to help you obtain contracts on the terms you want. Bribery is just so unsubtle and crude. Local "governmental relations" and "customs expediting" "consultants" are a much nicer way to do business in the modern era.

The Nicaraguan's remedies for dealing with United Fruit were to face the bayonets of United States Marines. If you had a problem with M. A. Hanna's mineral rights contracts in Cuba, you didn't have to deal with the US Marines, just the US supported puppet Batista (who had ten percent kickback from Hanna on the mineral rights, as did his wife) and his "police" forces, which were notorious for torture and murder. The US was instrumental in installing and/or supporting murderous butchering scum like Duvalier, Somoza, Batista, Pinochet and others. Batista was bad enough that the mainstream US press in the Eisenhower '50s even questioned why we favored such a greasy SOB.

If the principal the left advocates with respect to Latin American countries is valid, then US companies should be nationalized even in the United States, of course, without compensation.

The principles advocated vary, but equitable adjustment of contracts which are fraudulently entered into is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty for any new government. The only real
quibble is the method employed.

But this is not nothing less than extreme Marxism, is it not? This is Communism.

No, señor. It's just a leetle equitable adjustment because you had your hands in our cookie jar for a long time. It's nationalist, not communist. Like Molotov's song "frijolero."

So admit it, Michael the Great, you are a communist.

Hasta la victoria siempre, pinche gringo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Then what really surprises me is why you haven't bothered to get your facts right on US imperialism. I'd suggest you get some books on it. Believe it or not, you'll find out the US has been far less than righteous in its endevours.

But...since you're only trolling I assume that deep inside you know it already

At times, I admit, I don't now the facts involving US involment in Latin America all that well. What suggest is that we discuss them here whenever they come up. I find such threads educational and very enjoyable.

And, I really appreciate your input, Master Zen.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Master Zen
"The United States and Imperialism" by Frank Ninkovich

it's worth the read

You made an accussation and I asked you for specific example. Do you think you could choice an example out of your book and post it here?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We certainly screwed the West Germans when we liberated them.

Actually, US companies made a fortune off the artificially fixed 360 to 1 exchange rate imposed on the Japanese for the first two decades after the war, before realizing that the Japanese industrial base had matured enough to be the ones benefitting from access to the US market. From the late 40's to late 60's though, the US had a great ride in Japan and wrt Japanese products here.

[Ned]

Michael the Great, a well reasoned response. I also agree that to the extent US companies engage in bribery on the one hand, and the US government support the corrupt governments receiving the bribes, both the US companies and the US governments are wrong. However, it appears that we have turn our back on our corrupt past. Not only have we past the Corrupt Practices Act, we deliberately pulled the plug on certain dictators who had taken too much bribe money. I am thinking of a certain Marcos from the Pilippines for example.

So, MtG, you are, in the final analyisis, an American patriot!

BTW, what do you make of the not irrational argument that US businessmen must offer bribes because, after all, they are in competition with European, Russian and Japanese businesses?

[Ned]

To keep this off topic off topic discussion even more off topic, Zen, is there anything at all you see wrong with the Mexican government? And if so, how would you fix it?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hasta la victoria siempre, pinche gringo.

Pinche, eh? So does that mean I get to start cursing in Spanish now without getting banned?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


At times, I admit, I don't now the facts involving US involment in Latin America all that well. What suggest is that we discuss them here whenever they come up. I find such threads educational and very enjoyable.

And, I really appreciate your input, Master Zen.

How can we discuss them when you yourself are admitting to trolling? I for one, despite my sometimes very heated arguments, have never said something I don't belive myself, and have never said it just to provoke or delight myself in the responses of others.

If you want to discuss, let's do so, but let's really stick to reasonable debate, not just mindless trolling.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I for one, despite my sometimes very heated arguments, have never said something I don't belive myself, and have never said it just to provoke or delight myself in the responses of others.

Well your no fun, are you?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
To keep this off topic off topic discussion even more off topic, Zen, is there anything at all you see wrong with the Mexican government? And if so, how would you fix it?

I can write pages and pages and pages on this. Believe it or not depite my slamming on US foreign policy, I can slam on the Mexican internal one even more.

Rather than answering your question, I'd like to rephrase it (so it'd be easier for me to answer it).

Zen, is the anything at all you see right with the Mexican government?

the answer is hardly.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well your no fun, are you?

/me ponderes whether to become a mindless troller...


nah... no one would buy it

[MichaeltheGreat]

Give in to the dark side...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I can write pages and pages and pages on this. Believe it or not depite my slamming on US foreign policy, I can slam on the Mexican internal one even more.

Rather than answering your question, I'd like to rephrase it (so it'd be easier for me to answer it).

Zen, is the anything at all you see right with the Mexican government?

the answer is hardly.

Yeah, I laughed at that one too, pipope. About the only thing I see right with it is it's general lack of visibility, although it would be nice if they took their regressive taxes and made them as invisible as useful government services.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Yeah, I laughed at that one too, pipope

How dare you, gabacho!

[MichaeltheGreat]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, US companies made a fortune off the artificially fixed 360 to 1 exchange rate imposed on the Japanese for the first two decades after the war, before realizing that the Japanese industrial base had matured enough to be the ones benefitting from access to the US market. From the late 40's to late 60's though, the US had a great ride in Japan and wrt Japanese products here.

Those were the days. My father made $200 a month back then. Compared to the locals on Okinawa we were wealthy, with a full time nanny. I bought a friend of mine 8 birthday presents at the toy store for a dollar. Of course compared to Americans we were poor as hell. My dad couldn't afford high priced American stuff, so he was "forced" to buy a Sony reel-to-reel tape player, and a Panasonic 35mm camera.

[Arrian]

For the sake of trying to have an worthwhile discussion, I'd like to revisit the nationalization of foreign assets.

As MtG put it, the nationalization was a response to "having a hand in the cookie jar" - exploitive practices by US corporations in Latin America.

That makes a certain amount of sense to me, and given that I know a little History, it rings some bells with respect to the East India Company.

So here's the thing: provided we agree that nationalizing corporate assets isn't something to go to war over (and I'm sure there are those who disagree), what is the best way to prevent such situations from arising, and what is the best response if/when it does occur in the future? The way I see it, there are four options:

1) Do nothing. Status quo.
2) Slap an embargo on the offending country, hoping to discourage others from going the nationalization route in the future.
3) Don't do business in the 3rd world.
4) Pass legislation that regulates how US corporations act outside the US in an attempt to prevent exploitative practices that might lead to an extreme response down the road.

1 doesn't do much for me, 2 isn't likely to help anyone - even if it might "feel" good, 3 is laughable on its face. That leaves 4. But 4, even if the legislation is really well written ( ), guarantees nothing, and should it be passed into law and then a "nationalization" situation arises, the companies harmed would be at least somewhat justified in demanding US government assistance.... which brings us back to armed response.

Discuss, if you will.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

You have forgotten #5 :
Congratulate the nationalizing country for having taken back their rights in the face of capitalist pigs