5 ms·

That wasn't an invasion, that was just Civil Asset Forfeiture. That is a difficult read on a Sunday morning. > Some historians cite tangible gains, like hospit

That wasn't an invasion, that was just Civil Asset Forfeiture. That is a difficult read on a Sunday morning. > Some historians cite tangible gains, like hospitals, 800 miles of roads and a more efficient civil service, but they also point to the American use of forced labor, with soldiers tying up civilians in ropes, making them work for no pay and shooting those who tried to flee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jovenel_Mo%C3%AFse#Planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jovenel_Mo%C3... Those old black and white photos of troops boarding a ship to Haiti in 1915 is focused through a lens to arrive at the present here, https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1439989195871825921 https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1439989195871825921 The phrase "America is the worlds police" is now understood in its rightful context. America keeps its own peace by killing and shaking down those who it can.

QuercusMax 4y ago
Smedley Butler had some things to say about this too: https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm
- sitkack 4y ago
  I had never heard of Smedley Butler before, powerful speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler The excerpt isn't long. > War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. > I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. > I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. > There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. > It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. > I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. > I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. > During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. You can see him in archival footage talking to the Bonus Army in Washington DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ Analysis of speech to Bonus Army https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-smedley-butler-bonus-army/ https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-sm... 10 minute newsreel https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120 https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120 This is phenomenal, MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower led the removal of the Bonus Army from Washington DC and showed their colors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo This is shit we should have learned in history class.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    This is exactly the shit they standardize out of history class. What they tend to cover is wars. It makes for a good militaristic political nationalist student that gives credence to the idea that the US Government is a moral authority.
suture 4y ago
I grew up in the Canal Zone (former American colony in Panama). We Americans built roads, sewer, water systems, etc. in Panama. We paid good wages by Panamanian standards. This is the standard imperial justification. We thought Panama would never be able to run the canal without us. We were wrong. Panama ended up much better off without our presence. While we were “benign” colonists we held the country back. Someday, hopefully, powerful nations will not feel the need to be in control of other nations even when those nations do uppity things like control their own destiny.
- pirate787 4y ago
  The US is still heavily involved in Panama and used force to remove the narco-authoritarian leader Manuel Noreiga. Panama received a huge gift in the form of the canal. Panama still uses the dollar as its currency. Without US involvement Panama would look more like the other country considered for a canal -- Nicaragua. Panama's per capita GDP is 6x Nicaragua. US imperialism was fantastic for Panama.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    I wouldn’t consider the return of stolen property a “gift” regardless of how much it may have been improved by the thief.
    - eloff 4y ago
      I disagree with that characterization. The Panama canal was a huge gift to Panama, and the country has benefited immensely from it (I live in Panama.)
      - suture 4y ago
        I think that Panama would not be any near as well off had the Canal Zone remained. We stunted Panama’s political and national growth. It’s not a coincidence that the Thatcher Ferry Bridge was the only bridge across the canal on the Pacific side while America was in control. The political will to develop the infrastructure of the country simply was nonexistent until after we left.
selimthegrim 4y ago
Haitians of German descent* had a stranglehold on Haitian ports and maritime commerce. Wasn’t that a casus belli? We could have de-Germanized those industries, handed them back to majority along with Haitian government and it would have been a win-win without occupation. *Yes I know what Haitian constitution said about everyone being black but unlike Polish Haitians German Haitians resolutely intermarried only with each other to the point of inbreeding like Greeks in Ancient Egypt.

QuercusMax 4y ago

Smedley Butler had some things to say about this too: https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm

sitkack 4y ago
I had never heard of Smedley Butler before, powerful speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler The excerpt isn't long. > War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. > I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. > I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. > There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. > It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. > I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. > I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. > During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. You can see him in archival footage talking to the Bonus Army in Washington DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ Analysis of speech to Bonus Army https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-smedley-butler-bonus-army/ https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-sm... 10 minute newsreel https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120 https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120 This is phenomenal, MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower led the removal of the Bonus Army from Washington DC and showed their colors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo This is shit we should have learned in history class.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  This is exactly the shit they standardize out of history class. What they tend to cover is wars. It makes for a good militaristic political nationalist student that gives credence to the idea that the US Government is a moral authority.

suture 4y ago

I grew up in the Canal Zone (former American colony in Panama). We Americans built roads, sewer, water systems, etc. in Panama. We paid good wages by Panamanian standards. This is the standard imperial justification. We thought Panama would never be able to run the canal without us. We were wrong. Panama ended up much better off without our presence. While we were “benign” colonists we held the country back. Someday, hopefully, powerful nations will not feel the need to be in control of other nations even when those nations do uppity things like control their own destiny.

pirate787 4y ago
The US is still heavily involved in Panama and used force to remove the narco-authoritarian leader Manuel Noreiga. Panama received a huge gift in the form of the canal. Panama still uses the dollar as its currency. Without US involvement Panama would look more like the other country considered for a canal -- Nicaragua. Panama's per capita GDP is 6x Nicaragua. US imperialism was fantastic for Panama.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  I wouldn’t consider the return of stolen property a “gift” regardless of how much it may have been improved by the thief.
  - eloff 4y ago
    I disagree with that characterization. The Panama canal was a huge gift to Panama, and the country has benefited immensely from it (I live in Panama.)
    - suture 4y ago
      I think that Panama would not be any near as well off had the Canal Zone remained. We stunted Panama’s political and national growth. It’s not a coincidence that the Thatcher Ferry Bridge was the only bridge across the canal on the Pacific side while America was in control. The political will to develop the infrastructure of the country simply was nonexistent until after we left.

selimthegrim 4y ago

Haitians of German descent* had a stranglehold on Haitian ports and maritime commerce. Wasn’t that a casus belli? We could have de-Germanized those industries, handed them back to majority along with Haitian government and it would have been a win-win without occupation. *Yes I know what Haitian constitution said about everyone being black but unlike Polish Haitians German Haitians resolutely intermarried only with each other to the point of inbreeding like Greeks in Ancient Egypt.