[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[Eduardo Sanchez]

Hi David, thanks for picking up.

On Sunday 14 August 2005 13:25, David M. wrote:
> 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.

Not what I meant. I did mean, how did Hawaii became a territorial part 
of the U.S.? I am talking about the Bayonet Constitution and the 
Hawaiian League in 1887, and the resulting events. This reeks of 
imperialism...

>
> > 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.

Please. Cuban independence to this day is an oxymoron. Each banana 
dictator that came after the Spanish dominion had to have the blessing 
of the U.S. government, up to and including Batista. As for Fidel, we 
all know he is a blood-thirsty tyrant that opress his people under the 
iron fist of Communism. The "humanitarian" grounds were farcical: All 
kinds of explanations and apologies were offered for the unfortunate 
incident of the maine but not, the U.S. would go to war.
>
> > 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.

And how is this different from imperialism: annexating territories 
--unwillingly, see Emilio Aguinaldo-- overseas?

>
> > 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.

The point is, the revolt of Panama was engineered and abetted by the 
U.S. for the strategic purpose of getting a puppet state in the Canal 
Zone.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/476.html

Isn't that imperialism?

>
> > 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.

And that's how a lot of imperialism works:

1. Move some of your nationals to someone's territory.
2. Use these nationals as excuse to wage war on the other country.
3. Beat the other country in war and annexate the territories.
4. Profit!

That's what the U.S. did with Hawaii and Mexico. That's what happened in 
Czechoslovakia in 1938, with Neville Chamberlain trying just to 
"appease". That's what a lot of us Paraguayans are fearing now because: 
a) We're having a lot of Cuban and Colombian immigration (surprise!!) 
and b) we have a lot of Brazilian settlements over all of our Eastern 
borders, and, the U.S. is not an imperialistic nation; but Brazil is.

>
> > 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.

Thankfully, again, these actions belong to the past. The U.S. never was 
an imperialistic nation, but the U.S. had imperialistic episodes, all 
in the past, but those were not the norm (and that's why I'm able to 
point them out). Looks like after Teddy Roosevelt there were no more 
hints of overt imperialism on it.

Look, no nation in the world is perfect and spotless in her handling of 
international relationships. The good ol' U.S. of A., despite of a sea 
of good intentions, surely had her share of mistakes. It's no good 
trying to deny them.

Blessings,

Eduardo
-- 
Prof. Eduardo Sanchez
Asuncion, Paraguay, South America
--------------------------------------------------------------
 And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
 Came shining through the Dusk an Angel Shape
   Bearing a Vessel on his Shoulder; and
 He bid me taste of it; and 'twas--the Grape!

 -- The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
	   

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20050815/96cc4996/attachment.sig>