Rome ended its days as a republic when it became an empire. Hegemony =/= imperialism.
You’re right! I almost missed that. Our republic has suffered just like the Roman republic. We, like the Romans, have forgotten how to govern ourselves and have forgotten that the republican form of government was supposed to restrain executive power. Instead, like the Caesar and those after him, we’ve had a string of presidents since at least Lincoln that have seized more and more power for the executive branch, and Congress has sat impotent in the midst of tyranny. Am I to assume that your lack of comment on the definitions I gave means you now understand I have not made up my definition of imperialism?
Under your definition of imperialism you wish to place any influential country under the banner of empire.
Not at all. It depends on the pattern of behavior and the predatory nature of it.
We were backing political dissidents opposed to totalitarian communist rule in Cuba.
We planned and funded the attempted overthrow of the government of a sovereign country. We had no business doing so, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize such a thing.
That is a blatant lie and there is no evidence what so ever for this assertion outside of fringe websites which provide no documentation to back their claims.
Fringe? I have to wonder what your definition of fringe is. Probably any site that disagrees with you. The CIA helped the Baathists with a coup in 1963. Back in 1959, Saddam had tried the same thing with five other fellows, but they failed. Saddam fled to Egypt until, you guessed it, the CIA helped get the Baathists into power. Saddam then felt safe to come to Iraq, and he was then set up as the head of the Baathist Intelligence organization. We didn’t appoint him to be leader of Iraq, but we sure did hand it to his party.
Syria : The U.S. pushes 'regime change' at its peril - International Herald Tribune
“My late friend Miles Copeland, a former CIA officer, sketched out in his book "The Game of Nations" the role he played for the CIA in Damascus in 1949, as the United States and the Soviet Union competed for influence. Over coffee in a Cairo hotel room in 1968, Copeland reminisced that while U.S. diplomats were preaching democracy to the Syrians, whom they didn't understand very well, he had manipulated Syrian elections by bribery, giving them a veneer of honesty by importing American voting machines. Copeland and another former CIA operative, Wilbur Eveland, agreed that Colonel Husni Zaim's "pro-Western" coup of March 1949 was CIA work. It initiated a time of great instability and political violence.”
Going to this link should highlight where you should start reading.
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA ... - Google Book Search
That's true JFK killed Diem.
Well, there’s that, but we started our operations over there much earlier than that.
We’ve been occupying the Korean Peninsula for over sixty years. During that time we have armed and funded the South Koreans. We brought Syngman Rhee to South Korea from Hawaii and he acted as temporary president until officially elected in ’48. Rhee proved to be a thorn in our side because he wouldn’t do what we wanted him to do. When General Park took over in ’61 we didn’t directly put him in power. The conditions there at the time were great for a coup, so there were few problems, although it is known that the CIA did help smooth things along. The extent to which they did that is still classified (
JPRI Working Paper No. 20). We also trained Park at Fort Sill, OK for about a year and he came out an artillery commander. The same kind of thing happened with Chun Doo Hwan in ’79
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's ... - Google Book Search
Laos is one of the more widely known cases of US intervention.
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA ... - Google Book Search
CIA activities in Laos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm aware of Arbenze prove the 2nd assertion.
We also helped overthrow Miguel Ydigoras
http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/828
The guy that was overthrown even wrote a book about it called “My War With the CIA”.
That wasn't a coup it was a limited military engagement to restore democracy.
I didn’t say it was a coup. Remember I said “coups and such”. Our actions there were unconstitutional anyway.
There is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. directly supported the coup plotters against Allende. The most there is is evidence that we financed opposition political parties and media outlets.
CNN Cold War - Historical Documents: CIA Operating Guide on Coup Plotting in Chile
CNN.com - CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise - September 19, 2000
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...n, 9-16-73 11,50 Mr. Kissinger-The Pres 2.pdf
We occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. Also, there’s the Aristide ouster in ’04.
Aristide: 'Marines forced me to leave' - Americas, World - The Independent
And FYI you're going to have a tuff go of proving these accusations considering that the CIA has already aired its dirty laundry regarding these time periods:
I don’t understand how you can say that the Family Jewels would cover all CIA coup operations, when that report only covers material from the 1950’s to the mid 70’s. And besides that, I find it hard to believe that YOU would believe that the CIA disclosed every bad thing they did during the whole of their existence up to that point, and furthermore that they don’t do any bad things now. Just how much do you trust the government anyway? I suppose you think the 9/11 Commission Report is forthright and honest, too?
They are there in defense of U.S. interests. And can you name me a single example of an empire that placed troops in foreign lands only with the permission of the sovereign government?
What interests? The Constitution doesn’t allow for our military to be used for such things. Your second question shows you are still missing the point, that the US employs a different kind of imperialism. You’re still trying to make things conform to old world empire definitions. So just to be sure, do you reject the definitions I provided of imperialism? If you do, please say so and why.
Your knowledge regarding the AQ-Taliban relationship is quite limited, AQ was a member of the Taliban ministry of defense, and the Taliban even had brigades made up completely of AQ fighters. AQ funded the Taliban and in return the Taliban granted them a base of operations from which to launch attacks.
Limited? I have no doubt that the Taliban and AQ were thick as thieves, but how does that refute what I said about the ultimatum? FYI, as early as two days before 9/11 we already had planned to give the Taliban the ultimatum. 9/11 was just extra incentive I guess. As for funding, we gave the Taliban $43 million back in May of ’01.
He has been indicted in Spain and the only reason he hasn't been indicted for 9-11 is because there is already a superceding indictement on capital charges and a 2nd indictement would be superfluous:
Besides bin laden has confessed on video twice in the first video from 2001 it is clear from the video that 9-11 was an AQ operation:
And then in 2004 just before the U.S. Presidential Elections he directly confesses to 9-11:
Sounds entirely possible to me as far as the indictments are concerned, and I already had no doubt it was an AQ operation, that wasn’t at issue. I still think the FBI should list 9/11 as something he’s wanted for, but that’s just me. I’m just wondering how the government was so sure it was OBL before the tapes came out. Although, since we had plans in the works to take action in Afghanistan before 9/11, that may not even matter much.
