R.I.P. NELSON MANDELA!!!!!!!!!

[Bakes]

America does not rule by the gun, though it has at times in its history.  Malcolm X and MLK also got it wrong... there is folly in absolutes, so positing a nuanced position is not the same as hypocrisy as they suggest.

[elan]

America does not rule by the gun, though it has at times in its history.  Malcolm X and MLK also got it wrong... there is folly in absolutes, so positing a nuanced position is not the same as hypocrisy as they suggest.

What does America rule by?

[Bakes]

What does America rule by?

Ask yourself that.

[ribbit]

it is an empirical fact that post-colonial africa has had some of the worst leaders/governance out of any region. comparing mugabe to leopold - wtf?! leopold wasn't killing he own - mugabe is.

I think you might want to read that paragraph again. Your understanding of it seems muddled. The comparison is between a petty despot, and a genocidai tyrant. Regardless, am I more dead if one of my own kills me rather than a foreigner?

i disagree with the writer's claim that colonialism and despotism are somehow comparable. he's stretching here, trying to link the two but they are different. which is why this comparison between mugabe and leopold is . it only work if you can't appreciate the difference between a colonial venture and a despotic regime. i'm guessing you see them as similar.

[Deeks]

Also, not making any excuses for the African despots who screwed up bigtime. But many off them were working hand in glove with the former colonial masters. It was in many cases, he might be a dictator, by he serve our interest, i.e Mobutu, Savimbi, Sadat and his predecessor. The French has their hands in almost all the Afro-francophone business. That is why the President of Rwanda don't want nothing to do with them. They had a hand in Cote D'Ivoire debacle. Then their are issues in Chad, Niger, Burkina. I may have a french last name, but I don't trust Francois from Paris.

Then comparing African leader to Hitler is a way of trying to say, " you see..... black leaders are just as bad, or worse" It is THE way of absolving themselves of their past actions in the colonies.

One of the ironies of colonialism and post independence is the rule of law and order. When the Brits, French, Portuguese ruled, they governed with an iron fist to stifle dissent and criminal behaviour.  When they left the new govts tended to relax the rule of law because of the "heavy handed " use by "massa". But  in my opinion, this is where law and order tended to fall apart. To me criminal activity increased in almost all the countries. Most government were unable to deal with it.

[Dutty]

America does not rule by the gun, though it has at times in its history.  Malcolm X and MLK also got it wrong... there is folly in absolutes, so positing a nuanced position is not the same as hypocrisy as they suggest.

What does America rule by?

Drone strike

[Conquering Lion]

it is an empirical fact that post-colonial africa has had some of the worst leaders/governance out of any region. comparing mugabe to leopold - wtf?! leopold wasn't killing he own - mugabe is.

The very word empirical means that there is not enough information to make a sound judgement. Many of post colonial Africa's leaders were trained or propped up by western colonial interests to protect access to wealth.

You must dig deeper into the history of fellas like Idi Amin, Mobutu Seseko and even Mugabe in the early days. Things will make more sense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Wgxl85wms

Look the short version...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ46gIxo4CM

[Conquering Lion]

America does not rule by the gun, though it has at times in its history.  Malcolm X and MLK also got it wrong... there is folly in absolutes, so positing a nuanced position is not the same as hypocrisy as they suggest.

So is the gun just in the holster or hidden behind the trenchcoat ?

[Bakes]

So is the gun just in the holster or hidden behind the trenchcoat ?

There have been times in American history where that has been the case, the Spanish-American war ('gunboat diplomacy', Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy etc.), the Bay of Pigs fiasco and you could add Iraq to that list if you want.  For the most part however America rules more from a bully pulpit, which is a far different thing from ruling by the gun.  Usually America uses economic or diplomatic pressure to get its way, but the US doesn't rule by telling other countries around the world "do what we say or we will bomb/attack you" that is the equivalent of ruling "by the gun" and that is nonsense.  Same for comparing military action abroad with armed violence at home.

[asylumseeker]

A funeral for Mandela, and no Desmond Tutu. Too raw for the palate. Dat ain't right!

[ribbit]

A funeral for Mandela, and no Desmond Tutu. Too raw for the palate. Dat ain't right!

ah hear desmond tutu excuse heself from de proceedings. and then he change he mind and attend the funeral. tuttle-bey.

it is an empirical fact that post-colonial africa has had some of the worst leaders/governance out of any region. comparing mugabe to leopold - wtf?! leopold wasn't killing he own - mugabe is.

The very word empirical means that there is not enough information to make a sound judgement. Many of post colonial Africa's leaders were trained or propped up by western colonial interests to protect access to wealth.

You must dig deeper into the history of fellas like Idi Amin, Mobutu Seseko and even Mugabe in the early days. Things will make more sense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30Wgxl85wms

Look the short version...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ46gIxo4CM

what dictionary yuh use dey? 80% of de strongmen from post-colonial africa were predatory dictators. still, they had a few that were "benevolent" - like the fella from tanzania. which pose de question, if it was de white man pulling de strings why any of them was benevolent at all? the reason is de premise is to start.

[Deeks]

they had a few that were "benevolent" - like the fella from tanzania.


Julius Nyrere.

[Dutty]

Lawd! ah know mash up thread does be par for de course in here

But oh gorm, is de man death thread allyuh decide to paint with ah 3-coil steamer?

[asylumseeker]

Lawd! ah know mash up thread does be par for de course in here

But oh gorm, is de man death thread allyuh decide to paint with ah 3-coil steamer?

Selah!

[asylumseeker]

Good sense prevails in Turkey. Drogba and Eboue safe.

[Tiresais]

So is the gun just in the holster or hidden behind the trenchcoat ?

There have been times in American history where that has been the case, the Spanish-American war ('gunboat diplomacy', Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy etc.), the Bay of Pigs fiasco and you could add Iraq to that list if you want.  For the most part however America rules more from a bully pulpit, which is a far different thing from ruling by the gun.  Usually America uses economic or diplomatic pressure to get its way, but the US doesn't rule by telling other countries around the world "do what we say or we will bomb/attack you" that is the equivalent of ruling "by the gun" and that is nonsense.  Same for comparing military action abroad with armed violence at home.

Gotta disagree - American armed intervention, be it through state-sponsored assassinations (such as in the DRC, executing the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba) or through the numerous invasions during the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc) or through sponsored coup d'etats against democratically elected leaders (Guatemala, Chilé, Venezuela recently) has always been a central part of America's foreign policy. They care not for your politics, only that you support American interests, be they business or politics.

[Toppa]

Ah bissessar

Was trying to find this other than on somebody FB where I see it yesterday.  Kamla have to be a spectacular dunce to wear that to a man memorial service.  Just because she in Africa she feel the need to pappyshow sheself and dress up in African garb??  And some bright ass colors too when everybody else wearing something respectably subdued.  She clearly more concerned with the trappings of the office rather than the responsible execution of the duties thereof.

hahaha She really looking schupid in truth.

[Bakes]

Gotta disagree - American armed intervention, be it through state-sponsored assassinations (such as in the DRC, executing the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba) or through the numerous invasions during the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc) or through sponsored coup d'etats against democratically elected leaders (Guatemala, Chilé, Venezuela recently) has always been a central part of America's foreign policy. They care not for your politics, only that you support American interests, be they business or politics.

Exaggerate much?  Of those incidents listed, only Grenada counts as an invasion.  Both Korea and Vietnam were wars fought for the purpose of assisting allies.  As for the claims of sponsored coup d'etats... you would have had a better chance arguing Iran, the DR, Cuba etc... which, in any event was already covered by my preface that "there have been times in American history..."

At any rate I don't think you appreciate what "ruling by the gun" means.

[Tiresais]

Gotta disagree - American armed intervention, be it through state-sponsored assassinations (such as in the DRC, executing the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba) or through the numerous invasions during the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc) or through sponsored coup d'etats against democratically elected leaders (Guatemala, Chilé, Venezuela recently) has always been a central part of America's foreign policy. They care not for your politics, only that you support American interests, be they business or politics.

Exaggerate much?  Of those incidents listed, only Grenada counts as an invasion.  Both Korea and Vietnam were wars fought for the purpose of assisting allies.  As for the claims of sponsored coup d'etats... you would have had a better chance arguing Iran, the DR, Cuba etc... which, in any event was already covered by my preface that "there have been times in American history..."

At any rate I don't think you appreciate what "ruling by the gun" means.

What do you mean by ruling by the gun? To me it represents compliance through state-backed violence.

American invasions/armed conflicts since WWII;

1947 - troops land to reinstate Greek monarchy in Greece
1950 - US puts down revolt in Puerto Rico
1950 - Korean War (it was to stop communism, not 'assisting allies' per se, who were cut-throat dictatorial ass-hats)
1950 - fleet prevents Chinese attacks on Taiwan (thus protecting the Western-backed losers of the Chinese civil war, the ROC)
1955 - military advisors land in Vietnam
1959 - Vietnam (again propping up ass-hat dictators to prevent spread of communism)
1962 - Marine Expeditionary forces land in Thailand to prevent communism spreading
1962 - Kennedy quarantines Cuba, Cuban missile crisis
1962 - America starts supporting/(bombing in 1968) Laos
1965 - America invades Dominican Republic, crushing popular uprising to reinstate democratically elected leader and placing CIA-favoured leader in his place
1970 - Cambodia (more anti-communism attacks)
1973 - America supports Israel during Yom Kippur War
1981 - "military training" in El Salvador
1983 - America invades Grenada
1986 - America strikes Libya in response to his supporting terrorist bombings
1987 - America retaliates by attacking Iranian oil platforms for an attack on an oil tanker (bunch of retaliations around this period)
1988 - Troops sent to Honduras after (socialist) Nicaragua threatens them
1988-90 - America deposes Manuel Noriega from Head of State of Panama, having been on the CIA payroll a decade earlier (who helped him rise to the position in the first place)
1989 - America helps defeat a coup attempt in the Philippines, for once preserving democracy
1990-1991 - Operation Desert Storm (First Gulf War)
1992-2003 - US/UK enforce no-fly zones over Iraq
1992-1995 - US troops sent to Somalia
1993-1995 - US enforces no-fly zone over Bosnia
1994-1995 - US troops restore democratically-elected Haitian President 3 years after coup
1995 - America bombs Bosnian Serb army
1996 - America protects Kurds in Kuwait
1998 - US/UK bomb Iraq
1999 - US/NATO bomb Serbia and Serb positions in Kosovo
2001 - Invasion of Afghanistan
2001 - "War on Terror" involves increased military presence in the Middle East, especially Yemen
2003 - Invasion of Iraq
2004 - Drone attacks in Pakistan start
2004 - US increases presence in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen and Eritrea
2011 - US bombs Libya during civil war

Non-military 'rule by gun' - There's a truck load more but I got bored writing it all down

1950s - Due to threats to US control of Chilean resources, CIA character-assassinates and impedes leftist candidates in Presidential elections
1952 - First attempt by CIA to overthrow Guatemalan (democratically elected, but left-leaning) president in a coup d'etat
1953 - CIA sends death threats to leading communists in Guatemala
1954 - CIA overthrows Guatemalan President in coup d'état, installing a military junta
1958 - US supported Chilean government lowers tariffs, destroying domestic markets which are flooded with American products. US govenment increases funding ($130 mil) to prevent policy change. They interfere with Chilean elections for the next 7 years
1961 - CIA helps assassinate President of Dominican Republic
1964 - CIA sets up in Bolivia, helps launch coup d'état, gives $1,000,000 dollars (about $6.7 million today) to election campaign and aids in brutal suppression of opposition over the next 5 years
1964 - Aids coup d'état in Brazil, replaces democratically elected president with military dictatorship due to non-support of Bay of Pigs. Also character-assassinates president due to threat of nationalising the phone company of Brazil (who's CEO was friends with director of CIA)
1965 - President Johnson tries to justify invasion of Guatemala, fails
1966 - CIA takes steps to prevent Cheddi Jagan from winning election in Guyana  (he finally wins, in 1992....)
1967 - CIA helps capture and kill Che Guevara
1970 - Leftist wins Chilean election, US Government funds everything possible to overthrow and discredit Allende, from bribing officials, supporting guerillas, cutting all aid, funding media, bribing labour unions and eventually a coup
1973 - Chilean coup, supported by CIA, brings Pinochet to power. US supports military regime while it brutalises and murders its own citizens. CIA even has a part in the death of 4 American citizens.
1980s - CIA helps fight opposition to dictatorial government, thwarts coup in 1983
1981 - Nixon sets CIA up in Nicaragua to fund the Contras, started disrupting government by blowing up bridges and other infrastructure, in order to undermine Saninistas (who were perceived to be communists, even Congress didn't think they were communists)
1983 - CIA starts assassinating Nicaraguan officials as part of psychological warfare, also dabbles in drug-trading
1984 - CIA sets up in Honduras, trains torturers
1984 - Congress prevents funding of Contras in Nicaragua, International Court of Justice demands US pay reparations, US refuses
1987 - CIA helps interrogate and torture "suspected leftists" in Honduras
1993 - CIA helps overthrow Elías, president of Guatemala (who had suspended the constitution and attempted a self-coup)
1995 - America/CIA implicated in Human Rights report on Honduras kidnapping, torture, and attempted murder of 6 student activists

here's a wiki page for wars involving US - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
CIA wiki page has a box at the bottom, if you "show" the CIA box, you an see activities by geographical locale. There's a lot to get through

[Bakes]

As I said... you have no clue what 'ruling by the gun' means.  And all yuh Wikipedia research didn't help yuh figure it out either.

[Tiresais]

As I said... you have no clue what 'ruling by the gun' means.  And all yuh Wikipedia research didn't help yuh figure it out either.

Being rude doesn't help - I stated what I understood as 'ruling by the gun' means, if you have a different definition then tell me what you mean and we can talk, rather than make sarcastic comments.

[Bakes]

Being rude doesn't help - I stated what I understood as 'ruling by the gun' means, if you have a different definition then tell me what you mean and we can talk, rather than make sarcastic comments.

There was nothing at all 'rude' about my comments... if it makes you feel better, next time I will post pictures of kittens, and bubbles... or maybe kittens in bubbles, to help make the message more palatable for your delicate tastes.

As for the substantive question... Ruling by the gun:

Ruling- and imposition of will or reign

by the gun- utilizing force, duress or threat thereof.


In the vast majority of situations you cite these were transnational disputes that descended into war.  These have almost uniformly been entered into by the US at the behest of an ally.  As such it was assistance to the allied party rather than the US unilaterally imposing its will on the situation.  Whether you or anyone else agrees with the politics or faction supported by the US' involvement it's not the US that was ruling, nor the will of the US being imposed.  Of course US interests were likely achieved by their involvement, but that's separate from the analysis involving any imposition of will.

Just to illustrate how pointless your prior post was... you cite "1999 - US/NATO bomb Serbia and Serb positions in Kosovo" and "1992-2003 - US/UK enforce no-fly zones over Iraq" as purported examples of the US ruling by the gun.  These are just two in a long line of irrelevant, tangential entries offered in what is clearly a 'cut and paste' job.  They add nothing but empty space to the discussion.  Yet you take issue with my comment underscoring just that... a waste of everybody's time.

Other proffers are more relevant and compelling, such as the aforementioned Bay of Pigs, Lumumba assassination along with "1954 - CIA overthrows Guatemalan President in coup d'état, installing a military junta" and "1961 - CIA helps assassinate President of Dominican Republic."

But all that being said, none of these can conclusively be offered as examples of "the US ruling by the gun" seeing that many of them occurred some 30-40 plus years ago.  It has already been conceded that many such PAST actions occurred.  The same cannot be said about the present.  Even Bush's misguided war, the most recent relevant example, is already 10 years and three presidential administrations removed.

[Tiresais]

By your definition America certainly ruled by the gun during the Cold War, my examples clearly illustrate situations where American interests were forced on nations through use of force, be it by armed intervention, military support to adversaries, or CIA involvement in domestic affairs. Again you're sinking down to insults instead of being civil - your complete lack of manners is not an issue on my end mate - if you can't have a civil discussion you need to look at yourself rather than attack me.

In terms of the modern era, involvement in Pakistan, Yemen and Oman clearly shows in my view that America still continues to coerce nations to its will through use of violence and/or covert operations. Military backing of Israel continues the status quo in an internationally illegal occupation of Palestine (UN Security Council Resolution 478, International Court of Justice Ruling 9th July 2004), whilst the Snowden files show a willingness of the US Government to coerce, illegally tap, and otherwise covertly undermine regimes from both dictatorial and democratic spectrums.

Let me be clear - I'm not arguing that America is necessarily bad, certainly they're clearly better than Putin's 'Mafiocracy', China's One-state Oligarchy and a whole host of more undesirable nations, but to assume that America lives on goodwill is to ignore it's international relations history with the world. If you don't understand how America's past actions inform how nations, terrorist organisations, and individuals interpret and view America's current actions then I am suggesting that you might not be getting the whole picture. American foreign policy has historically, and currently, relied too much (in my opinion) on "hard power" (that being through covert operations and military action) than "soft power" (that gained through socio-cultural influence and diplomatic routes).

[Bakes]

This will be my last response.

The statement made in the MLK/Malcolm X quote was that America lives by the gun.  Even if true then, it's demonstrably not true now, and acts of warfare where two nations are at war, is not a legitimate example of America living "by the gun", especially where the US was not the aggressor.  This is what I disagreed with that then spawned the discussion.  All this tangential talk about how America's past may inform how terrorists view the US today etc... I haven't the faintest clue what that has to do with the discussion.  In rhetorical terms that would best be described as a 'red herring.'

At no point did I hint at or suggest... let alone state that "America lives on goodwill."  That you would read what I state and derive that conclusion from my statements is a clear indictment of your comprehension.  See, that is an insult.  Everything else that preceded it, not an insult.  Do with it what you will... moving on.

[Tiresais]

Agreed, Merry Christmas

[asylumseeker]

Here's what has been neglected in the discourse regarding Kamla's attire at Madiba's memorial service.












There are others ... including a captivating pink.

[asylumseeker]

She doing women a real disservice with her performance in office.  Normally her gender wouldn't merit mention, but given how much play it got when she was first elected... and how she herself feted and continued to fete the occasion, her performance real shameful.

*sigh* as a woman, ah real shame......

Browns, I'm surprised you agree with this assertion.

[Bakes]

Agreed, Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas 

[Brownsugar]

She doing women a real disservice with her performance in office.  Normally her gender wouldn't merit mention, but given how much play it got when she was first elected... and how she herself feted and continued to fete the occasion, her performance real shameful.

*sigh* as a woman, ah real shame......

Browns, I'm surprised you agree with this assertion.

Why??   

[AB.Trini]

Images and dress choices by the honourable Pm appears to me as nothing of substance. There is no merit in her actions to suggest that the wolf dress in sheep's clothing has a bite.  To me it is merely propaganda - probable aim to appease an ethnic population at home. Very much like in the past few weeks one newspaper has kept publishing pictures,of her with kids almost daily- the propaganda machine around this government is unreal.
This is another example of actions that are filled with 'sound and fury signifying nothing'