So that's your example? America's an empire because of Gitmo?
Uh, no, that was just an example of how these treaties we signed with countries before anyone can say they had a dutifully-elected government can be hard to get rid of and thus continue the same relationships without having the consent of the people. Not to mention there are ways to convince the people it should stay.
If you believe that one country invading another country is, somehow, indicative of being an Empire... Then, well, you're a lost cause.
Wait a minute, what the hell is up with that? You dismissed out of hand that the U.S. forced nations into our alliances specifically saying "whose capital have we sent our tanks in to keep them in line" and I merely noted that we have done it many times as a matter of historical record.
A moot point. If less exploitation happened, for whatever reason, then you can debate intent all you want but idealistic results were accomplished. There is no difference between idealism and accomplishing idealistic ends.
Honestly, like I said, imperialism could itself be said to be idealistic. Many countries pursue imperialism out of some idealistic notion even if it isn't the same one they tell the public about.
US Foreign policy has had everything to do with making the world freer. Its intended aims may have not been that end. Yet the reality is that the world is freer, more prosperous, and more scientifically advanced because of the United States.
Uh, no that is not the reality. The reality is countries had been pursuing political reform long before the U.S. came into being and continued without connection to the U.S. coming into being. Did ideals in the U.S. influence people outside the U.S.? Yes. Was this in any way aided by American foreign policy? No. Far from it our foreign policy has consistently sought to corrupt these processes or remove them entirely because ultimately a free-thinking people does not suit U.S. interests well.
In spite of the fact that both Taraki's and Hafizullah Amin's political parties (the foci of contention) existed well before US involvement? The existence of Islamic "freedom fighters" has never been a reason for Soviet involvement.
The dispute existed for sure, but then the Soviets didn't invade until after we started lending our support.
You see ladies and gentlemen the U.S. was responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you heard it here first. Also, interesting to know, according to this guy the U.S. is responsible for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The more you know. :roll: Oh FYI the interview in which Zbigniew allegedly admitted to sending arms to the Mujahadeen is a fabrication, he never made those statements he maintains that no arms were sent until a week after the Soviets invaded and this assertion is easily verifiable because the records are open the accusation that he ever said that is not backed by the historical records and it just happens that the portion of the interview that he allegedly made these comments were not recorded or videotaped. Gee what a surprise.
Uh, I never said anywhere that we provided them with weapons, and indeed as you can observe in that video it is more the reporter's confusion about the previous interview bringing this response. It is convenient that we both found this video. I had known of the interview with the French paper but just found the video today as well. I am sure you watched the whole thing including the parts about Robert Gates' book right? You know, where they say before the Soviets invaded they gave weapons to Pakistan so that Pakistan could give the weapons to the mujahideen. I was actually under the impression that our support was non-material, but apparently we were arming them before the Soviets invaded as well, just not directly.
So the arrest of political dissidents by Iraqi Federal police somehow proves that the U.S. didn't allow the Iraqi people to elect their own leadership? Ya Maliki sucks, but guess what, WE DIDN'T PUT HIM IN POWER, the Iraqi's did.
It doesn't matter if the Iraqi people voted him in, he is beholden to the U.S. because of things like this, not to mention the huge military presence we have there. Even after we live he will be armed and aided by the U.S. or its allies in the region.