Contrary to what the kindergarten version of history will have you believe, US foreign policy over the last 60 years hasn't been dominated by some starry eyed concern for spreading human rights and democracy. In most cases the protection of US interests has been at the expense of both. Chomsky expands on his familiar themes of US "security" being overwhelmingly about the active suppression of independent economic development. 


Quote:

The administration of George H.W. Bush issued a new national security policy and defense budget in reaction to the collapse of the global enemy.  It was pretty much the same as before, although with new pretexts.  It was, it turned out, necessary to maintain a military establishment almost as great as the rest of the world combined and far more advanced in technological sophistication — but not for defense against the now-nonexistent Soviet Union.  Rather, the excuse now was the growing “technological sophistication” of Third World powers.  Disciplined intellectuals understood that it would have been improper to collapse in ridicule, so they maintained a proper silence. The U.S., the new programs insisted, must maintain its “defense industrial base.” The phrase is a euphemism, referring to high-tech industry generally, which relies heavily on extensive state intervention for research and development, often under Pentagon cover, in what economists continue to call the U.S. “free-market economy.” One of the most interesting provisions of the new plans had to do with the Middle East.  There, it was declared, Washington must maintain intervention forces targeting a crucial region where the major problems “could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.”  Contrary to 50 years of deceit, it was quietly conceded that the main concern was not the Russians, but rather what is called “radical nationalism,” meaning independent nationalism not under U.S. control.

The most intense efforts against democracy movements by the US has been in South and Central America...


Quote:

Another source of evidence is the declassified historical record.  It contains revealing accounts of the actual motives of state policy.  The story is rich and complex, but a few persistent themes play a dominant role.  One was articulated clearly at a western hemispheric conference called by the U.S. in Mexico in February 1945 where Washington imposed “An Economic Charter of the Americas” designed to eliminate economic nationalism “in all its forms.” There was one unspoken condition.  Economic nationalism would be fine for the U.S. whose economy relies heavily on massive state intervention. The elimination of economic nationalism for others stood in sharp conflict with the Latin American stand of that moment, which State Department officials described as “the philosophy of the New Nationalism [that] embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.” As U.S. policy analysts added, “Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.” That, of course, will not do.  Washington understands that the “first beneficiaries” should be U.S. investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function.  It should not, as both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations would make clear, undergo “excessive industrial development” that might infringe on U.S. interests.  Thus Brazil could produce low-quality steel that U.S. corporations did not want to bother with, but it would be “excessive,” were it to compete with U.S. firms. Similar concerns resonate throughout the post-World War II period.  The global system that was to be dominated by the U.S. was threatened by what internal documents call “radical and nationalistic regimes” that respond to popular pressures for independent development.  That was the concern that motivated the overthrow of the parliamentary governments of Iran and Guatemala in 1953 and 1954, as well as numerous others.  In the case of Iran, a major concern was the potential impact of Iranian independence on Egypt, then in turmoil over British colonial practice.  In Guatemala, apart from the crime of the new democracy in empowering the peasant majority and infringing on possessions of the United Fruit Company — already offensive enough — Washington’s concern was labor unrest and popular mobilization in neighboring U.S.-backed dictatorships.

The virus of nationalism:


Quote:

To borrow Henry Kissinger’s terminology, independent nationalism is a “virus” that might “spread contagion.” Kissinger was referring to Salvador Allende’s Chile.  The virus was the idea that there might be a parliamentary path towards some kind of socialist democracy.  The way to deal with such a threat is to destroy the virus and to inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national security states.  That was achieved in the case of Chile, but it is important to recognize that the thinking holds worldwide. It was, for example, the reasoning behind the decision to oppose Vietnamese nationalism in the early 1950s and support France’s effort to reconquer its former colony.  It was feared that independent Vietnamese nationalism might be a virus that would spread contagion to the surrounding regions, including resource-rich Indonesia.  That might even have led Japan — called the “superdomino” by Asia scholar John Dower — to become the industrial and commercial center of an independent new order of the kind imperial Japan had so recently fought to establish.  That, in turn, would have meant that the U.S. had lost the Pacific war, not an option to be considered in 1950.  The remedy was clear — and largely achieved.  Vietnam was virtually destroyed and ringed by military dictatorships that kept the “virus” from spreading contagion. In retrospect, Kennedy-Johnson National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy reflected that Washington should have ended the Vietnam War in 1965, when the Suharto dictatorship was installed in Indonesia, with enormous massacres that the CIA compared to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  These were, however, greeted with unconstrained euphoria in the U.S. and the West generally because the “staggering bloodbath,” as the press cheerfully described it, ended any threat of contagion and opened Indonesia’s rich resources to western exploitation.  After that, the war to destroy Vietnam was superfluous, as Bundy recognized in retrospect.

http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/whose-security/

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Contrary to what the kindergarten version of history will have you believe, US foreign policy over the last 60 years hasn't been dominated by some starry eyed concern for spreading human rights and democracy. In most cases the protection of US interests has been at the expense of both. Chomsky expands on his familiar themes of US "security" being overwhelmingly about the active suppression of independent economic development.  Quote: The administration of George H.W. Bush issued a new national security policy and defense budget in reaction to the collapse of the global enemy.  It was pretty much the same as before, although with new pretexts.  It was, it turned out, necessary to maintain a military establishment almost as great as the rest of the world combined and far more advanced in technological sophistication — but not for defense against the now-nonexistent Soviet Union.  Rather, the excuse now was the growing “technological sophistication” of Third World powers.  Disciplined intellectuals understood that it would have been improper to collapse in ridicule, so they maintained a proper silence. The U.S., the new programs insisted, must maintain its “defense industrial base.” The phrase is a euphemism, referring to high-tech industry generally, which relies heavily on extensive state intervention for research and development, often under Pentagon cover, in what economists continue to call the U.S. “free-market economy.” One of the most interesting provisions of the new plans had to do with the Middle East.  There, it was declared, Washington must maintain intervention forces targeting a crucial region where the major problems “could not have been laid at the Kremlin’s door.”  Contrary to 50 years of deceit, it was quietly conceded that the main concern was not the Russians, but rather what is called “radical nationalism,” meaning independent nationalism not under U.S. control. The most intense efforts against democracy movements by the US has been in South and Central America... [quote]Another source of evidence is the declassified historical record.  It contains revealing accounts of the actual motives of state policy.  The story is rich and complex, but a few persistent themes play a dominant role.  One was articulated clearly at a western hemispheric conference called by the U.S. in Mexico in February 1945 where Washington imposed “An Economic Charter of the Americas” designed to eliminate economic nationalism “in all its forms.” There was one unspoken condition.  Economic nationalism would be fine for the U.S. whose economy relies heavily on massive state intervention. The elimination of economic nationalism for others stood in sharp conflict with the Latin American stand of that moment, which State Department officials described as “the philosophy of the New Nationalism [that] embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.” As U.S. policy analysts added, “Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country.” That, of course, will not do.  Washington understands that the “first beneficiaries” should be U.S. investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function.  It should not, as both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations would make clear, undergo “excessive industrial development” that might infringe on U.S. interests.  Thus Brazil could produce low-quality steel that U.S. corporations did not want to bother with, but it would be “excessive,” were it to compete with U.S. firms. Similar concerns resonate throughout the post-World War II period.  The global system that was to be dominated by the U.S. was threatened by what internal documents call “radical and nationalistic regimes” that respond to popular pressures for independent development.  That was the concern that motivated the overthrow of the parliamentary governments of Iran and Guatemala in 1953 and 1954, as well as numerous others.  In the case of Iran, a major concern was the potential impact of Iranian independence on Egypt, then in turmoil over British colonial practice.  In Guatemala, apart from the crime of the new democracy in empowering the peasant majority and infringing on possessions of the United Fruit Company — already offensive enough — Washington’s concern was labor unrest and popular mobilization in neighboring U.S.-backed dictatorships.

[/quote]

He is correct, this is why Western economic systems are a total sham facade for organised crime.

The USA is just the capstone of the pyramid.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

Contrary to what the kindergarten version of history will have you believe, US foreign policy over the last 60 years hasn't been dominated by some starry eyed concern for spreading human rights and democracy.

Just the last sixty years? Really?

Try 238 years, guy. The United States has been doing this from our very inception, and for that matter, so has every other smacking nation on earth since the dawn of civilization. ALL state-actors act in their own self interests all the time. It's the one constant to international politics, and that you or that sh*thead Chomsky think this is at all a new or even remotely revolutionary thought is, quite frankly, mind boggling.

Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:31am:

Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective.

None of them. That's the point. Can you name one? Niether can I. All we can name is what is the least worst opion. At current, it's western democracy, and let's face it, that isn't all that great of an option either.

But it beats the poo out of the alternatives.

Also, thank you for failing to address my actual post points, which was "This isn't new at all, it isn't something that happened in the last sixty years, and it's something EVERY nation does".

SO how's the weather down your way?

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 10:17am:

SO how's the weather down your way?

Hot. The temp the other dy got into the high 90s (F), wth a heat index of 110F. Seriously, I think I saw a poor little ginger lad spontaneously combust.

Chard wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 7:31am: Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective. None of them. That's the point. Can you name one? Niether can I. All we can name is what is the least worst opion. At current, it's western democracy, and let's face it, that isn't all that great of an option either. But it beats the poo out of the alternatives. Also, thank you for failing to address my actual post points, which was "This isn't new at all, it isn't something that happened in the last sixty years, and it's something EVERY nation does".

What a load of apologistic tripe.

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 10:57am:

Chard wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:42am: freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 7:31am: Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective. None of them. That's the point. Can you name one? Niether can I. All we can name is what is the least worst opion. At current, it's western democracy, and let's face it, that isn't all that great of an option either. But it beats the poo out of the alternatives. Also, thank you for failing to address my actual post points, which was "This isn't new at all, it isn't something that happened in the last sixty years, and it's something EVERY nation does". What a load of apologistic tripe.

Did I say "sorry" in any of that, buddy (The big clue is I'm ot a smacking Canadian)? No, I did not. I'm not apologizing for a goddamn thing, edit.  I'm stating the way things are and have been for far longer than your presumptuous ass has been sucking air on my planet. I am not apologetic in the least, boy. How about you try adding something useful to the thread, like a counter-argument to my claim that all nations always act in their self interests first.

Chard wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 10:57am: Chard wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 8:42am: freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 7:31am: Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective. None of them. That's the point. Can you name one? Niether can I. All we can name is what is the least worst opion. At current, it's western democracy, and let's face it, that isn't all that great of an option either. But it beats the poo out of the alternatives. Also, thank you for failing to address my actual post points, which was "This isn't new at all, it isn't something that happened in the last sixty years, and it's something EVERY nation does". What a load of apologistic tripe. Did I say "sorry" in any of that, buddy (The big clue is I'm ot a smacking Canadian)? No, I did not. I'm not apologizing for a goddamn thing, asshole.  I'm stating the way things are and have been for far longer than your presumptuous ass has been sucking air on my planet. I am not apologetic in the least, boy. How about you try adding something useful to the thread, like a counter-argument to my claim that all nations always act in their self interests first.

You're saying we're lucky, it could be a lot worse. I'm saying it could be a lot better. You are looking for reasons not to take a critical view of the status quo. You're attitude stinks too, edit

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 7:31am:

Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective.

Thats not an argument FD, its not even a relevant point here.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 11:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 7:31am: Name one current or historical nation or empire that you would prefer to have as the sole global super power. That's what we call perspective. Thats not an argument FD, its not even a relevant point here.

You forget to mention that America has really bad coffee. It's truly aweful. The sooner America stops ruling the world, the better. Green tea is much better.

The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we should submit to a patently false version of history, and ignore the lessons from that.

Its spineless apologetics from people like you who are enabling abuses like secret torture and rendition, smuggling arms to listed terrorists and creating failed states like in Iraq and Libya.

Winston Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 3:37pm:

You're saying we're lucky, it could be a lot worse. I'm saying it could be a lot better. You are looking for reasons not to take a critical view of the status quo.

Bullsh*t. Seriously, if you're not going to actually read what I wrote and respond to that instead of inventing sh*t I explicitly did not say in order to build another retarded strawman then do us both a favor and don't talk to me. I have neither the patience or the attitude to deal with liars. Be honest or f*ck off.


edit

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power.

You make it sound like a tough question.


Quote:

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we should submit to a patently false version of history, and ignore the lessons from that.

Strawman.

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:30pm:

wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:28am: The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power. You make it sound like a tough question.

Again, can you think of a better alternative? I mean one that's actually viable.

Chard wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 12:14am:

freediver wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:30pm: wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:28am: The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power. You make it sound like a tough question. Again, can you think of a better alternative? I mean one that's actually viable.

We don’t construct global superpowers. They construct us.

Slaves yearn for their masters’ praise. Whores love being fcked.

In a hundred years we’ll all be asking what better alternative there is to.China.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 1:20am:

Chard wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 12:14am: freediver wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:30pm: wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:28am: The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power. You make it sound like a tough question. Again, can you think of a better alternative? I mean one that's actually viable. blah blah blah

That's nice. Now, could you answer the question? Can you think of a better alternative, yes or no? If yes, let's hear it. If no, then why are you wasting my time and this board's bandwidth?

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:30pm:

You make it sound like a tough question.

Not a tough one, just a stupid one. Personally I'd prefer Australia to be the dominant world power.


freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:30pm:

Quote: But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we should submit to a patently false version of history, and ignore the lessons from that. Strawman.

You seem to consider it a valid rebuttal to the completely unrelated arguments set forth in the OP.

Actually, it was your reply that is the strawman - no one is debating whether or not the US would be the best superpower. In any case, I think most people here are only too familiar with your spineless apologetics for the brutality and suffering that has been part and parcel of US hegemony.

Chard wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

Enquiring mind wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 1:20am: Chard wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 12:14am: freediver wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:30pm: wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 11:28am: The US may or may not be the best option for a sole super power. You make it sound like a tough question. Again, can you think of a better alternative? I mean one that's actually viable. blah blah blah That's nice. Now, could you answer the question? Can you think of a better alternative, yes or no? If yes, let's hear it. If no, then why are you wasting my time and this board's bandwidth?

Karnal believes that the Murdoch press has stolen his ability to think for himself. Obviously he is not going to be able to come up with a better alternative under such circumstances.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

Karnal believes that the Murdoch press has stolen his ability to think for himself. Obviously he is not going to be able to come up with a better alternative under such circumstances.

Ok, that's Karnals excuse for not answering a direct question. What's yours?

Chard wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 10:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Karnal believes that the Murdoch press has stolen his ability to think for himself. Obviously he is not going to be able to come up with a better alternative under such circumstances. Ok, that's Karnals excuse for not answering a direct question. What's yours?

You didn't ask me a direct question, Mein Fuhrer. But given I think Rupert Murdoch has stolen my ability to think for myself, you might want to ask FD.

He can answer for me.

FD, you see, believes in Freeedom.

Quote:

Ok, that's Karnals excuse for not answering a direct question. What's yours?

It was my question. That would be like laughing at your own joke. Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Quote:

Not a tough one, just a stupid one. Personally I'd prefer Australia to be the dominant world power.

Good choice, except for the Queen bit of course.


Quote:

You seem to consider it a valid rebuttal to the completely unrelated arguments set forth in the OP.

Your entire opening post is a strawman.


Quote:

Actually, it was your reply that is the strawman - no one is debating whether or not the US would be the best superpower.

You are. You seem to think Australia would be better.


Quote:

In any case, I think most people here are only too familiar with your spineless apologetics for the brutality and suffering that has been part and parcel of US hegemony.

Why don't you remind them, just in case?