[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[David M.]

On Saturday August 13 2005 9:00 am, Eduardo Sanchez wrote:
> Doc, please let me state that I am in no way an anti-US person. I think
> the US has legitimate reasons to be in Irak and to fight terrorism. But
> I think some of your remarks would merit qualification:
>
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 13:36, dmc wrote:
> > The Hitler example is improper because he seized power illegitimately
> > and led his country into an utterly unnecessary war of imperialism.
> > The USA has never in modern history engaged in any war for
> > imperialistic purposes (had we been imperialistic we'd directly
> > control Europe, Japan, and other sections of the world).  The USA has
> > neither engaged in warfare for any purpose other than strategic
> > self-defense.
>
> That is simply not true. Now, let me point some counter-examples. How
> did Hawaii end up being an U.S. State? 

Hawaii ended up being a U.S state because the people of Hawaii wanted 
statehood before and even after WWII so Congress made Hawaii the 50th state 
in 1959. This didn't have anything to do with Japan attacking Pearl Harbor 
(the event that drew the U.S into WWII) where Japan knew they were attacking 
the U.S forces based there. 

> What about the whole 
> Cuban War, fought over an unjust accusation?

If your referring to the Spanish-American war, the United States are the ones 
that waged war on Spain to liberate Cuba in 1897. The reason the US jumped in 
the war was for economic and humanitarian grounds, more so on humanitarian 
grounds because it was thought at the time that Spain sunk an American 
battleship that was sent to the port of Havana to protect Americans and the 
Spanish in Cuba. Somewhere around 250 or 270 American servicemen died on that 
boat. After the whole conflict Cuba confirmed that the U.S was not acting to 
secure and empire, but to protect Cuban independence.

> What about Puerto Rico becoming 
> an "associated" state?

> What about the Philippines?

The Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the island of Guam were ceded to the Unites 
States as a result of the Spanish-American War.


> What about Panama, a country whose secession from Colombia was abetted
> by the U.S. because they needed a puppet state in the Canal Zone?

Not entirely true. the U.S and Great Britain drew up a treaty that was 
ratified in 1901 and the treaty gave control of the canal entirely to the 
U.S. This had nothing to do with Panama's revolt from Colombia. Since then, 
control of the canal has been given back to Panama.

> What 
> about Mexico and the Mexican-American War? 

Texas and Mexico started this war. There were U.S citizens living in Texas at 
the time and the U.S feared that the state New Mexico (then Mexico) and some 
southern parts of California would fall into Great Britain or Frances hands.

So after Texas defeated Mexico (on their own) in 1836 they organized the 
"Republic of Texas" and Great Britain, France and the U.S gave Texas 
Diplomatic recognition, but Mexico would not give up and, many conflicts 
happened over the next few years. Then by demand of the people of Texas, the 
then president was defeated by the citizens and they joined the union in 
1845.

Then in 1846 disputes over the western boundary of Texas resulted in the U.S 
declaring war on Mexico and in 1848 a treaty was signed to make the Rio 
Grande the boundary of Texas, California and what is now New Mexico.

Then in 1853 the U.S finally purchased the rest of the territory from Mexico 
which now forms the United States as it is today.

> I admit that these examples are --thankfully-- a thing of the past; but
> these were U.S. actions that I would call "imperialistic", and in no
> way related to strategic self-defense.

I beg to differ.

-- 
David M.