US Foreign Policy: 20th Century

Hawaii was the first. Their legitimate monarchy overthrown by sugar planters because the Queen wanted to nationalize and democratize Hawaii for the natives. The sugar planters could not have that; and invoked the US Marines to overthrow the Queen, and create a Republic, with the intention of being annexed by the US. President Grover Cleveland would not have it; but William McKinley was glad to oblige them.

The stone was set.

TR, Taft, & Woodrow Wilson proceeded with the same policy, inspired by Corporate interests, in Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and so forth.

In Iran, in the 1950's, the Iranian government, which was leaning towards democracy, wished to nationalize their oil industry among its citizens. The British were threatened, and used their alliance with the US to create a coup. The Shah of Iran was overthrown, an authoritarian regime more beneficial to the interests of the West was installed, and the seeds were planted for future generations of Iranians to hate America. This hate breeded extremism; and brought the Ayotollah Khomeini to power.

....and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do all of these terrorists hate us because of our freedoms? Yes! Not because they do not have freedom; but because we would not let them have freedom.

America needs to start being held accountable for its reckless foreign policy over the last 100 years. Like the Romans 2000 years before, we have become a bullying empire. Rome lasted a thousand years; but it eventually fell. We have only existed for 231 years; and we are already pissing off the entire world.

I love America; or I would not care about her so much. She needs to change; for her own betterment.

Arch.

 

Arch,

I am not sure where you are getting your information but you are slightly backwards.

Hawaii had become a democracy long before Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1900. Hawaii was constantly being threatened by European nations eager to add Hawaii to their empires, sugar planters and American businessmen began to seek annexation by the United State. This, too, would give them the advantages of a sugar market free of tariff duties. Finally, a treaty of reciprocity was negotiated in 1875 and this brought new prosperity to Hawaii. American wealth poured into the islands seeking investment.

Hawaiian royalty wanted to regain control from the people in the 1890's. The Americans formed a Committee of Safety and declared the monarchy ended. In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was established. On August 12, 1898, the government of the Republic transferred sovereignty to the United States. Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1900.

So what you describe as bully tactics by the Americans was actually a way of keeping the control over Hawaii with the people and not the monarchy.

You are correct though, the stone was indeed set.

Repeatedly over the past century the United States has come to the aid of numerous countries whos sovereignty has been threatened. And yes, you are also correct in that there have been times that we were the aggressor.

As for the Shah of Iran, what you neglect to mention is that in the early 1940's the Shah of Iran had begun to align himself with Germany against interests in Europe. That is the reason that Britain and the USSR invaded Iran. Not Britain and the USA. It was Britain and the USSR. They forced Reza Shah to abdicate, and in the absence of a viable alternative, permitted Mohammad Reza of the Mohammad Massaddq to assume the throne. The Shah of Iran became a close ally of the West. In the context of regional turmoil and the Cold War, the Shah established himself as an indispensable ally of the West. Domestically, he advocated reform policies, culminating in the 1963 program known as the White Revolution, which included land reform, the extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy.

So again, your rendition of history is somewhat flawed. If it was the United States that was responsible for overthrowing the Shah why did he end up spending considerable amount of time in the Unitd States prior to his death? The reason that the Iranians started disliking the United States is because we allowed him to come to the United States to be treated for cancer. He had ben exiled from Iran and how dare the United States disrepect the Ayatollah Khomeini's Regime by allowing him to enter the United States. His arrival in New York City led to the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran by "Students of Imam's Line" and the taking hostage of more than 50 Americans for 444 days.

 

How can you claim to love something that you want to change the very essence of? You are a Christian and I assume you love Christ. Would you want to change him? You are married and I assume you love your spouse, would you want to change the very essence of him/her?

I love America too, and I love it because of what it is, who we are, and how we have *always* come to the aid of people worldwide regardless of whether or not it is in our best interest. We are the most unselfish country on this planet. Our military will put their lives on the line for complete strangers on foreign soil who will never know and most won't care of the sacrifice these men and women make everyday. Yet they do it willingly, without question. I REALLY love that.

I loved the way the people of the United States would come together to unite behind a cause. I loved that while we may not have always been liked or agreed with around the world, we were respected. We were envied for how or country stuck together.

Out of curiosty, just exactly how do you want to see the United States change? How woud you change it?

 

Have you read the book "All the Shah's Men?" How about "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer? Very interesting reads, I must say.

It is about regime change coerced by the US.

"Regime change did not begin with the administration of George W. Bush; but has been an integral part of US foreign policy for more than one hundred years. In Overthrow, Stephen Kinzer tells the stories of the audacious American politicians, spies, military commanders, and businessmen who took it upon themselves to depose foreign regimes, starting with the toppling of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. He details the three eras of America's regime-change century: the imperial era,when Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras were brought into the US orbit; the Cold War era, when the CIA deposed governments in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile; and the invasion era, when American troops overthrew governments in Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq."

Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer

submitted by Arch.

OH, and you are wrong. Queen Liliukalani (sp) had declared a new constitution, that would have given native Hawaiians the right to vote and choose their government in Hawaii, and threatened to nationalize the sugar industry. The corporates in Hawaii were threatened by this; and invoked the Marines to assist them in overthrowing the Queen. In 1993, on the 100th anniversary of the overthrow, President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology to Hawaiians for what happened.

Arch.

 

My belief in foreign policy is something like this:

Get back into the agreements we once were involved in. (The Kyoto Protocol, The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, International Criminal Court, Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects, etc.)

Get involved in leading the world in solving shared problems-confronting terrorism, AIDS, & Global Warming.

That is my idea of a proactive foreign policy.

Arch.

 

Clinton was the first President to reject the idiotic Kyoto treaty. All the other treaties are complete crap. The only country capable of enforcing any of them is the U.S. As we know, the UN sure as hell can't do anything. Why should we sign any of these treaties knowing good and well that the U.S. will be the only country to abide by them. In essence, all we'd be doing is limiting our power while simultaneously allowing other countries to build up theirs.

My idea of foreign policy? Screw Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, and S. America. We should protect American interests first. We do more for this world than any other country in the history of the planet in terms of donations (gov't and private), humanitarian aid, charity work, etc. and every country (other than Israel) still hates us.

I don't think we should be isolationists, but I also don't think it's our job to get caught up in all of these "foreign entanglements" as George Washington put it.

 

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

-my grandmother.

Are we the shepherd, or the sheep? I believe in America as a LEADER, not a follower. To allow the actions of other nations on AIDS, Global Warming, or terrorism to make us shirk our own responsibilities in this world is the WORST foreign policy I have ever heard of.

We are all in this together; and if Americans do not wake up and realize that we can not do this alone, then there is no point in taking up any cause at all.

Do you know why 1 in 3 women are now being deemed infertile? Do you know why there is a rising rate of cancer, not only in the US, but in this world?

Yes, Global warming is one of many causes; but the Cold War is the main culprit. I am not saying that we had a choice; but we are now reaping the consequences of that "choice." Between the Soviet Union and the US, more nuclear radiation has been put into our atmosphere than any World War III could have even thought of doing. Many of these tests were done in New Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico. What sits in the middle? Texas! Yes, my state is becoming engulfed in cancer rates, infertility, and other diseases. So far, they have blamed it on other things; but I know the truth. We are paying the price for the Cold War arms race of our parents.

The people on this planet are symbionts with one another. The actions of one nation affect other nations. For America to isolate itself from the world will only do it more harm than good. If we are the leaders of this world; then it is time that we start living up to the part. Whether we wanted this role or not, God has given it to us. The choice is simple; are we the shepherds, or are we the sheep?

Arch.

 

Very wonderful, Arch!

America is, nevermind how hard it may be to believe sometimes, in my opinion, one of the greatest nations. However, we are failing at that and fast.

We need to get our heads out of our butts and be concerned with others. It IS our business to get involved with other countries, but to help them- not to rape them of their resources.

Our foreign policy, from what I've seen, is to put American corporate interests first and leave it at that, but of course twist the tale the American people get so it's all acceptable by us- not that we would do much about it either way.

Nuclear anything is going to be a disaster, as Chernobyl showed and continues to show with increased cancer rates from those in the region.

Of course the blame will be on other things, not the wonderful military-industrial complex that keeps us oh-so-safe from guys wearing turbins in caves half a world away.

I'm sick of the lies that attempt to perpetuate these false American ideals and image. War is never an answer to anything, diplomacy doesn't work because the MIC hasn't wanted it to work. Violence is never the answer.

And btw: if we leave Iraq- they won't follow us home. I don't recall the Vietcong following us home... (no proof, just my opinion.)

There are just too many flaws with thinking war will be the cure-all we want.
God never declared that America is the best nation, we're all in this together with the other nations. We need to work together for our interests while cooperating to keep the American people's interests near, if not at the top of the list.

 

Hahaha. This reminded me of a time back in kindergarden when I got into a fight with another boy. The teacher pulled me aside and after hearing my explanation told me that "Two wrongs don't make I right." I remember telling her "Well, a right and a wrong don't equal a right either. But at least two wrongs make you even."

The U.S. is a leader when appropriate, but the U.S. alone cannot solve the world's global problems.

In regards to AIDS, the U.S. can't prevent all gay people from sleeping around, it can't prevent all Africans inflicted with the virus from having children and spreading it to them. The only real way to eradicate this disease is to quarantine/kill every person who has it. It will take a generation, but eventually it would be gone. Do you want the U.S. to take a lead role in this?

Concerning global warming, even if the U.S. halts all production/manufacturing/advancement (and killing our economy in the process) which the GW alarmists cite as the cause of global warming, it only means that a country like China would pick up the slack, and thus, their economy would continue to boom while ours plummets and in the end -- the fossil fuels that go into the atmosphere remain the same. Is it really worth halting all techonology and killing our economy for changing the earth's average temperature 1/10th of a degree -- especially when Earth's temperature could drastically change on a whim. Humans just don't have that much control over the climate. Earth has purged man before, and can just as easily do it again without humans being able to do anything.

And for terrorism, the U.S. has taken a lead role in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. But we can only do so much. We need the so called "moderate" Muslims to actually take a stand. They need to stand up to what they claim is a miniscule minority of Muslims that are terrorists and stop allowing them to build their infrastructure in their civilian neighborhood hospitals, mosques, schools; they need to stop allowing their children to be indoctrinate with the anti-West, anti-American, anti-Israel propaganda; they need to refuse to allow terrorist training camps to exist in their country; they need to prevent terrorists from recruiting in their neighborhoods; they need to point out to U.S. officials where the terrorist leaders/training camps/etc. are.

The U.S. can do more for this globe than any other country, but it can still only do so much.

That's a nice little theory. I'd like to see some proof/evidence other than some guy behind his computer proclaiming "but I know the truth".

The U.S. has provided more charity (both gross #s and percentage, both private and gov't), more humanitarian aid, and more life for other countries than any other country in the history of mankind -- and everyone still hates us. America will NEVER be the sheep. It will either be the shepherd or nothing. There are times when both positions are appropriate.

 

You assert that we're "not concerned with others". Haha:

Somalia? Kosovo? Who gave the most aid to the tsunami effort? Katrina? Afghanistan? Iraq? Countless African countries?

I look forward to your list of countries who we are "raping them out of their resources".

Not always corporate. At least not in the last 95 years (save for some smaller conflicts). But a proper foreign policy is to always put AMERICAN interests first and leave it at that. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Do you elect leaders to put the world's problems first or America's concerns first?

Except for ending slavery, facism, and nazism, war really hasn't solved any problems.

When are you pie-in-the-sky idealists going to realize that evil exists in the world and sometimes the only way to negotiate with evil is through the barrel of a gun. You can't negotiate with people who aren't interested in anything other than blowing themselves and you up to get to heaven and their 72 virgins.

Give war a chance.

Totally different scenarios. you seem to have forgotten that the terrorists have already proven their dedicated and capable to attacking us here at home. Further, they have declared their intentions to follow us home.

The VC or NVA had nothing against America, other than we were standing in their way of establishing a Communist state. They had no reason to follow us home. However, the terrorists do have something against America (that we're the most powerful country ever -- and not Muslim) and they will follow us home.

War isn't always the answer. But sometimes it is.

I'm an American. I put American interests above all others. Period.

 

I am a Christian. While I do not believe our government has the right to legislate religion; it does affect my own personal convictions on the world.

That being said, I put God's interests in humanity before anything.

Do you worship the cross, or the flag? The Bible says that we can not serve two masters.

I am a Christian first, and then an American. If what this country is doing in Iraq is against my Christian convictions; then I refuse to support it.

Arch.

 

The flag, though I do believe in God and attend Church every Sunday.

Liberating people from oppression is against your Christian beliefs?

 

Liberating people from oppression is against your Christian beliefs?

Oh you have to be kidding? We are not there to liberate people from oppression. If that is true, then why the hell is Fidel Castro and his brother still in power? Or how about all of the genocidal regimes in Africa?

Give me a break! Yea, sure, I appreciate the fact that the Iraqis have been liberated as an afterthought; but do not even insult me by saying that this is why we are fighting over there. I may have been born in the dark; but it was not last night.

Arch.