Posted on 07/08/2006 8:34:03 AM PDT by rface
Editor, the Tribune:
Please read "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. Most Americans think we are the good guys. We know we provide aid to other countries and send millions of dollars when there is a tsunami, volcanic eruption, famine and other catastrophes. We do, but what else have we done to other nations?
The book "Overthrow" reports on 14 regime changes the United States has forced on other nations. George W. Bush isn’t the first to overthrow the leader of a sovereign country. Kinzer starts with Hawaii in 1893, when we ousted Queen Liliuokalani so American sugar growers could expand.
We sent a warship into Havana Harbor in Cuba in 1898 and declared war on Spain.
Two other regime changes: The Iranians democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh as their ppresident in 1951. Both houses of the Iranian Parliament voted to nationalize Iran’s oil. British oil companies were paying a small percent to Iran for the oil they had shipped out for many years. Our CIA helped install the shah.
Kinzer asks, "Why does a strong nation strike a weaker one? Usually because it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources."
Yes, we have a good country, but it would be a lot cheaper to buy what we need rather than send our young men off to kill others and be killed. You never get over killing other human beings - I know. Bring our troops home now!
Charles L. Atkins
(address deleted, but available at link)
Columbia, Missouri
I think it is good to turn over the rocks to see what's underneath them.....so here's what I found under this rock....
Was the Civil War overthrowing a leader of a Sovereign Country?
Was Hitler an elected leader of a Sovereign Country?
The kook-left moves farther into isolationism........
I was hoping to post an "In before the ZOT."
But I see you just omitted the barf alert.
where's the barf alert?
1. Spain had no business in Cuba.
2. Hawaii wasn't making itself useful anyways.
3. The British and the French were way more "imperialistc" than we ever were. Everybody was doing it. We probably had the most humanitarian expansion in 1898. Remember, we made Cuba a protectorate.
1. Spain had no business in Cuba.
2. Hawaii wasn't making itself useful anyways.
3. The British and the French were way more "imperialistc" than we ever were. Everybody was doing it. We probably had the most humanitarian expansion in 1898. Remember, we made Cuba a protectorate.
Oops sorry I was posting that to rface.
It is not a matter of goring the Ox, it is who's Ox is getting gored.
I do hope your kidding on that one.
I'm surprised at nothing that comes from that place.
Yeah, but where else would we coal our ships?
The left is always forced to rewrite history, because history does not fit their kook ideology.
We will delve into the left wingers emotional instability later : )
Read post #1 again.
Charles L. Atkins - criminal extraordinaire and apparently a budding historian as well - is wanted by the police in Nashville.
http://www.police.nashville.org/get_involved/fugitives/adkins_charles_l.htm
The difference is that the US always lets the citizens of that country decide what kind of government they want, and then we leave. Hawaii, Cuba, Guam, Phillipines, etc. all VOTED to either become democracies and/or American territories or protectorates.
"Read post #1 again."
Okay, I read it again.
so who do you call....the Missouri police or the Tenn police???
different spelling last name.....
Actually, it is now believed that a faulty powder magazine exploded.
Cuba had always been of interest to the American government.
Hawaii is a convenient place to harbor our ships.
I don't think we took took any hostile action in Hawaii, by the way.
Atkins is regular Kook-Left letter to the Editor writer in MO.
I think your on to something.
Now consider that Jackson, Michigan just a few miles from Battle Creek boasts a sign that says the birth place of the Republican party.
HMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
and I hope people reading this understand this is sarcasm
Proven by numerous science experiments, and by pure logic. The Spanish didn't blow up the U.S.S. Maine. They knew what would happen if they did. They probably didn't and it happened anyways.
Provided them with a rare gift called freedom.
Who cares. The Cubans wanted the spanish out anyways.
His statement on Iran however is a valid one. Iran is partially our Frankenstein.
Any post on Free Republic that contains the term "my Socialist Brothers" is either sarcasm or a troll. I was being sarcastic.
From Editorial Reviews (Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com )on Amazon:
"The book (Stephen Kinzer's 1982 book 'Bitter Fruit') became a classic on college campuses in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration used attempts to "roll back" Soviet-backed communism as the rationale for funding the Nicaraguan contras and a massive counterinsurgency campaign against leftist rebels in El Salvador. For many Americans who cut their political teeth not on Vietnam but on the Central American wars (as well as for the Latin Americans who witnessed these displays of imperial hubris more directly), such interventions raised profound doubts that American meddling -- whether packaged as rollback, preemption or democracy promotion -- could possibly be worth the human or political cost."
Ohhhhhh...of course. It would have been much less costly to leave the communist regimes in their place. /sarcasm
No offense intended, but you don't know your history on this one.
The United States had zero role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This is a myth that continues to be perpetuated by the left and various apologists. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled 103rd Congress, in Bill Clinton's first year in office, voted a resolution apologizing to the "Hawaiian" people for the overthrow.
The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown by a group of influential businessmen, mostly Americans, but including English, German and other Europeans, who had heard a rumor that the monarchy was planning to seize the property that had been previously sold or leased to them. Many of these "haoles" were citizens of Hawaii, 2nd or 3rd generation residents, and some of them were of partial Hawaiian descent. The overthrow was more of a revolution, considering the citizenship of the rebels. The United States' alleged role was landing some 200 sailors and marines in Honolulu when the overthrow occurred. These men had only a passive role, protecting U.S. citizens and property, and did not participate in any way. The 200 U.S. Navy personnel was a fraction of the 1500 armed men that the businessmen had in Honolulu. The same apologists fail to mention that the Kingdom of Hawaii afforded no rights to the many Asian immigrants (mostly Japanese and Chinese), or even Europeans who did speak English, who were unable to vote for the legislature. Following the overthrow, the Republic of Hawaii was established, pretty much along the same framework of the U.S.
True. But had we not acted, then Iran would likely have been a Soviet Frankenstein.
Each of these actions must be examined in their historical context. An exercise which often fails when reviewing liberal-inspired imperialism. As in Serbia, for instance...
Read my post #36.
We took the Phillipines and Hawaii because otherwise the European Powers/Japan would have moved in.
The Committee of Safety then made its move and armed companies of militia took over government buildings and offices. The evening before, marines and sailors from the U.S.S. Boston were landed to keep order in Honolulu and their commander, Captain G.C. Wiltse, openly supported the Provisionals. The Queen was powerless.
Finally on January 17, 1893, the Queen faced the inevitable and surrendered under protest. On January 31, Minister Stevens, at the request of the Provisional Government's advisory council, raised the U.S. flag over Honolulu. Annexation was thought to be a mere formality. President Cleveland's administration concluded that the monarchy had been overthrown by force with the complicity of the U.S. minister.
Here is a link: Lili'uokalani (b. 1838, d. 1917)
Okay, okay. But violent action had to be taken because the islands were populated by violent native HEADHUNTERS. Yeah, thats the ticket. And they had to be shown who is boss. And Hawaii has not exactly been active in the search for the Minnow, the crew (The Skipper and gilligan), and it's passengers (Professor roy hinkley, The Howell's, Mary Ann whashername, and Ginger Grant the famous movie star.
I doubt that anyone told this chap about the Soviet occupation of northern Iran after WWII.
OK, I did. Where am I mistaken?
You're kidding. Is that really him? If it is surely they know he's at MU journalism school, all sarcasm aside.
Must be different guy same name.
John Kerry on the other hand would have gone for Mrs. Howell. John Dean? I think he would go for the Professor.
If they had, he would have found it fully justified.
To the left, the Soviets were always right and only American actions were inexcusable.
Even that's not right. The overthrow was a British operation, not an American one. The British had all the connections -- e.g. with anti-Government mullahs who could put protesters on the street, and with dissidents in the military -- that were important to engineering regime change. American connections were basically with official government entities. We were basically pro-Mossadegh, at least by default.
The British repeatedly hectored Eisenhower to go along with a coup attempt, and the later finally relented, reluctantly, when it appeared Mossadegh might be leaning a bit toward the Soviets. Never woulda happened if it was only the Americans making the decision. We would have (and easily could have) wooed Mossadegh back instead.
The American role in the revolution against Mossadegh itself was peripheral and minor. I'm recalling the details off the top of my head, and may not have them exactly right, but see Amir Taheri's book Nest Of Spies.
America's role was to hand out money to elements of the opposition. (And that probably mostly at the direction of the British.) In the event only a fraction was actually dispersed, something like 10 or 30 thousand dollars out of an intended 300 thousand. The reason was that the Americans in Teheran decided that the coup had failed after the first several days of demonstrations, so they stood down!
What the left today stubbornly believes about CIA involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh is pure myth. But there's a certain justice here. The myth was initially created by the CIA itself, desperate to cite successful operations in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs debacle. (There was one operative in particular, Kermit Roosevelt, who went around loudly claiming to have installed the Shah all but singlehandedly, and remarkably was widely believed.)
No it isn't. See my preceding.
America hasn't done anything every other country hasn't done. We have killed far fewer people than the French, who liberals worship.
Little Stevie Kinzer is the New York Times flack who tried to make his bones in support of the Sandanistas in Nicaragua during the 80s. Hoping to follow in the path of Herbert Matthews, the NYTimes pro-Castro reporter of the late 50s, Kinzer was so obviously smitten by Marxism that he was actually an embarrassment. Nonetheless, the NYTimes kept him on to do man bites dog reporting at home and abroad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.