American way of overthrowing regimes

[Jaga]

I just turned on the C-Span to see some new books presentations and I was lucky to hear a very interesting discussion about a new book by a very wise man - NYTimes correspondent to Turkey and other countries, Stephen Kinzer to talk about his newest book "overthrow". He is very critical of Am. way of overthrowing regimes in other countries.

He is saying that Americans are never admitting like other countries... that they are doing this in their own interest but they would naively argue that they do it for the sake of the other countries.

Here is a fragment of his book:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5325069


Here is a fragment

[Jaga]

Excerpt: 'Overthrow'
by Stephen Kinzer

Introduction

Why does a strong nation strike against a weaker one? Usually because it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources. Shifting combinations of these three factors motivated the United States as it extended its global reach over the past century and more. This book examines the most direct form of American intervention, the overthrow of foreign governments.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode. It was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons. Like each of these operations, the "regime change" in Iraq seemed for a time -- a very short time -- to have worked. It is now clear, however, that this operation has had terrible unintended consequences. So have most of the other coups, revolutions, and invasions that the United States has mounted to depose governments it feared or mistrusted.

The United States uses a variety of means to persuade other countries to do its bidding. In many cases it relies on time-honored tactics of diplomacy, offering rewards to governments that support American interests and threatening retaliation against those that refuse. Sometimes it defends friendly regimes against popular anger or uprisings. In more than a few places, it has quietly supported coups or revolutions organized by others. Twice, in the context of world wars, it helped to wipe away old ruling orders and impose new ones.

....http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5325069

[bescheid]

Interesting subject.. the end result of most regime changes by force is usally the same, it gets changed. The question of how is the answer. If by political change over with politiects as the moving force. Is always good, especially if it is through the will of the people by an election process.

If the moving force is through the force of arms, by an opposing military. Then it becomes messy.

With the case of the US. It has been both ways.

(strange this should come up at this time, for I had entended to present a very simular subject, but was hesitant because I enjoy staying in this forum)

Perhaps as with sensitive programme presentations. It is a matter of how the material is presented and not so much of the material in self that makes it acceptable.

For as an example: The public would absulutly not accept horse droppings to be profusly deposited upon the streets in great abundance. It is nasty, smells and draws insects.

But, this was the case before the motor car. Horses were used for transportation and draft animals. The droppings were accepted as a normal cause and effect of using horse power. And as such, if the community was with the resources, the droppings on a timely basis were removed.

Then, the power of propaganda: It is a very powerful tool used through out the ages by most successful goverments. The trick of propoganda, is to lead the public in such a manner, that they (public) as unaware that the motovating information is propaganda.

As an example: If one will remember the many war time motion pictures with famous actors. The enemy is usually always protrayed as evil, stupic, ugly and just out right nasty mean. It is a very effective manner of consuladating the public behind their goverment to do the will of that goverment.

If a person(s) will not agree with the will of the goverement, then those so guilty, will suffer at the will of that goverment. And with the previous tools used by propaganda designed and implimented, this will be accepted by the public as just.

What is just, and what is true, is always in the mind of the beholder.

Charles

[Jaga]

Did any of you read this fragment of the book (besides Charles). I read it thoroughly today and it made me depressed really

By a quirk of history, the United States rose to great power at the same time multinational corporations were emerging as a decisive force in world affairs. These corporations came to expect government to act on their behalf abroad, even to the extreme of overthrowing uncooperative foreign leaders. Successive presidents have agreed that this is a good way to promote American interests.

Defending corporate power is hardly the only reason the United States overthrows foreign governments. Strong tribes and nations have been attacking weak ones since the beginning of history. They do so for the most elemental reason, which is to get more of whatever is good to have. In the modern world, corporations are the institutions that countries use to capture wealth. They have become the vanguard of American power, and defying them has become tantamount to defying the United States. When Americans depose a foreign leader who dares such defiance, they not only assert their rights in one country but also send a clear message to others.

[kaima]

I didn't read teh book, but I suspect that the Hansa league was also quite international and managed to run and higly influence several governments in their favor. Then of course there was Venice .....

Kai

[Jaga]

Kai,

not the book, just three pages under this link

One of the conclusions is - It was good for USA to have Soviet Union because SU kept American foreign politics in check - sad but true

[kaima]

Another conclusion in addition to the Soviet Union keeping US foreign policy in check is a wild one, and not from the book but just an observation.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the value of the American worker seems to have dropped to nothing and to have become a commodity. It is almost as if the competition of the social systems was enough to keep capitalism treating the workers in a reasonable fasion so that socialism & communism would not be attractive. Now that that alternative collapsed, we can be treated most any way they chose, and we must accept it. Including a lower standard of living.

just a wild theory, but one I would like to hear some comment on.

Kai

[bescheid]

{Did any of you read this fragment of the book (besides Charles). I read it thoroughly today and it made me depressed really }

Gollies, can I help it...I was a science Major in college and political science was easy. It kept my grade point up. Several writings of Carl von Clausewitz were required reading and for reference materials and so those teachings always come to my mind whilst in writing on similar subjects.

I think perhaps though, I had best slow down here. A quick review of past subjects has my name as last of posting. For in self, this is not good as it is indicative of over indulgence with my writings to the extent of prohibiting others from responding further. I would with certainty, not want to be guilty of chasing folks away.

Charles

[hollister]

Jaga,
Interesting Book - Interesting ideas
It seems to point out that the USA has yet to learn the law of unintended consequences. I do think we as a nation prefer to solve problems quickly rather than take a long term solution.