3 ms·

Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its

by wz1000 10y ago

Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous. The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala. The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S._defense_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...

js8 10y ago
I see it as different periods, really. The decisions are made by people, and there were different people in power in 1940s United States than in 1980s United States.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  The decisions are made by people, following policies that have been in place for decades.
  - js8 10y ago
    Sometimes, sometimes not. Marshall plan wasn't based on decades of policy, but rather on decades of experience.
    - fit2rule 10y ago
      I think you mean to say: The Marshall Plan is a policy, formulated on the basis of decades of experience.
avar 10y ago
> Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point. But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear. > But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous. I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.
- wz1000 10y ago
  The US isn't concerned with civilian casualties. Of course, it wouldn't go out of its way to inflict them, but it simply pays no regard to them, no matter what their scale. Look at US actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Libya for direct instances of this, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of US actions.
  - praxulus 10y ago
    Yes, that explains why we carpet bombed cities in Iraq and Afghanistan to pacify them instead of sending soldiers to door to door.
    - wz1000 10y ago
      Iraq has assets important to the functioning of the US and world economy. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also the first time there were major anti-war protests before US entry since WW1 If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War > US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96] > UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO

by wz1000 10y ago

js8 10y ago

I see it as different periods, really. The decisions are made by people, and there were different people in power in 1940s United States than in 1980s United States.

fit2rule 10y ago
The decisions are made by people, following policies that have been in place for decades.
- js8 10y ago
  Sometimes, sometimes not. Marshall plan wasn't based on decades of policy, but rather on decades of experience.
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    I think you mean to say: The Marshall Plan is a policy, formulated on the basis of decades of experience.

avar 10y ago

> Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous. Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point. But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear. > But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous. I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.

wz1000 10y ago
The US isn't concerned with civilian casualties. Of course, it wouldn't go out of its way to inflict them, but it simply pays no regard to them, no matter what their scale. Look at US actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Libya for direct instances of this, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of US actions.
- praxulus 10y ago
  Yes, that explains why we carpet bombed cities in Iraq and Afghanistan to pacify them instead of sending soldiers to door to door.
  - wz1000 10y ago
    Iraq has assets important to the functioning of the US and world economy. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also the first time there were major anti-war protests before US entry since WW1 If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War > US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96] > UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO