US Imperialism

[graffic]

Hello there..

A few questions directed at resident commies and socialists..

How much do you guys think US foreign policy is affected by economics? I mean, do you think the "religious" and "democratic, free culture" promotion abroad is a pure lie to hide US economic interests. Or is there a grain of truth in some of it.

[ROM]

I am not grinning. But I am sure the oil companies are.

[graffic]

I mean.. Would you say Roosevelt from the beginning was purely lying to the masses when he invaded Cuba?

Would you not agree there was a careful mixture of truth and distorted evidence? Do you not think it irrational to believe the government uses propaganda to such an extent and lies so brazenly?

[The Douche]

I think that in the classic imperialist stage (the american one, not the euro one) that there really was a legitimate sense that the US had christianize and westernize other people because it would help them. "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling demonstrates this. And I feel that they saw the benefits reaped as simply payment for the good they were doing.

Now, however, I think it is solely about securing markets, and the mumbo-jumbo about democracy is just justification. I don't think neo-cons are actually interested in democracy in Iraq. I garuntee if an anti-american party won the election they would throw it out.

[graffic]

Yeah. So while the US does in a sense "spread" Christianity/ moral civilization by removing certain dictators or injecting cash into certain organizations they are also spreading their business interests.

I think when they put business interests in front of "positive" intentions its something to talk about.

Do you think Roosevelt, for example, used his religion and "desire" to do "good" in order to create domestic support for interventions which were primarily serving the interests of big business?

[Pero's Pen]

How much do you guys think US foreign policy is affected by economics?

A lot of it. However, much of the policy is directed at political struggles. Neither are very seperable however.


Do you not think it irrational to believe the government uses propaganda to such an extent and lies so brazenly?

No, what better way to fool people? "Democracy" and "freedom" are set on bourgeois terms, that is, protection of private property: a must!


I think that in the classic imperialist stage (the american one, not the euro one) that there really was a legitimate sense that the US had christianize and westernize other people because it would help them

Humor at its best!


Would you say Roosevelt from the beginning was purely lying to the masses when he invaded Cuba?

Whether he was aware or not that he was outright lying is inconsequential. He was among the most enthusiastic supporters for the Spanish-American War under McKinley, that is, he was enthusiastic about the US squabbling with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines. From Spanish domain to US! Such independence achieved.

[RGacky3]

Whether he was aware or not that he was outright lying is inconsequential. He was among the most enthusiastic supporters for the Spanish-American War under McKinley, that is, he was enthusiastic about the US squabbling with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines. From Spanish domain to US! Such independence achieved.

I don't even think its lying, its just justification, justifying what they need to do to keep power. It happens all the time, just look at your average relationship, how many half-truths are told, to justify, to keep the other person and so on.

[timbaly]

The ideas to spread democracy are purely secondary. "Democracy" is spread because it's thought to compliment consumer capitalism. The democracy the United States government advocates for is only the kind that is reformist and against the "radicalism" that might spawn out of the downfall of corrupt regimes. Democracy is seen as stable because democratic governments are usually supported internationally and democratic regimes are more likely to be defended by the international community than dictatorships in times of conflict. Markets are more stable in democracies than dictatorships with some exceptions of course. Dictatorships can be dangerous to invest in because it can be hard to know what the leadership may do to private property. They may also disregard laws, so investments are seen as less secure in this sense.

[RGacky3]

The ideas to spread democracy are purely secondary.

Thats giving them A LOT A LOT of credit. Thats assuming the very best.


"Democracy" is spread because it's thought to compliment consumer capitalism.

Not at all, its not complimentary, Democracy is there to keep the people from revolting, and to allow the Capitalists to rule in peace.


Dictatorships can be dangerous to invest in because it can be hard to know what the leadership may do to private property. They may also disregard laws, so investments are seen as less secure in this sense.

That is true, but, many a times has "democracy" been detremental to Capitalism and Dictatorship prefered, i.e. when democracy gets too democratic.

[timbaly]

Thats giving them A LOT A LOT of credit. Thats assuming the very best.
When I say "democracy" I am using it ito mean the American Government's definition. That "democracy" is not what you and I would view as democracy.


Not at all, its not complimentary, Democracy is there to keep the people from revolting, and to allow the Capitalists to rule in peace.
I think it's complimentary for precisely those reasons. The style of democracies the United States tends to support are less likely to have radical revolts and that means more secure markets in most cases.