All Communist Party nomenklatura had greater privileges than the average Westerner. That doesn’t mean communism was a better system for those who weren’t.
False.
We import almost nothing, and we subsidize what we export with our own funds. A net loss on both sides of the ledger. The only “military cooperation” that happens is against its own enemies, not ours. Add the “intangibles,” the worldwide negative reaction against our single-minded obsession with that one country, and you have a huge minus.
Not all Muslims are Jihadists but some are and many potentially are
They “some” and “potentially” have increased exponentially since 1948. Before then, jihad was a concept from history books and a suicide bomber, unthinkable except perhaps the story of Sampson.
False. The immediate effect of the Open Door Policy as the implementation of the Open Door Notes concerned U.S. foreign policy with respect to the Philippines and Cuba
False yourself. As early as 1868, “Open Door Policy” referred to free immigration, and particularly free Chinese immigration. In 1899, it referred to free trade with China. In neither case was there any explicit backing up of free immigration or free trade with “force if necessary.”
OPEN-DOOR POLICY FOR CHINESE IMMIGRATION – 1868
1880 President Benjamin Hayes signs the Chinese Exclusion Treaty, which reverses the open-door policy set in 1868 and places strict limits both on the number of Chinese immigrants allowed to enter the United States and on the number allowed to become naturalized citizens.It has a specific historical meaning in the context and as a corollary policy to the Open Door Notes…If you deal with this ahistorically you will have missed this seminal American foreign policy decision
”Earth to Lent - You are speaking ahistorically now”
I repeat, “Open Door Policy” began as a term in the 1860's for immigration, especially Chinese immigration, and ended up as a term for Chinese trade, and neither instance was “protected by force if necessary.”
Markets must be protected by force from time to time.
What the hell are you advocating? So jihadists are wrong to try to impose their religion, but industrialized and well-armed countries can impose their markets? Rubbish.
There is no single-minded obsession with respect to Israel. The only obsession I've seen which has caused the U.S. to impart its sons and daughters in a full-scale war was to defend the Arab Islamic regimes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Now the U.S. maintains a $50 billion investment in keeping the area safe from Hussein.
They “some” and “potentially” have increased exponentially since 1948. Before then, jihad was a concept from history books and a suicide bomber, unthinkable except perhaps the story of Sampson.
The Jihad has been a consistent and intrinsic Islamic notion ever since Mohammed and perfected under the Ottoman Empire.
Your discussion on the Open Door is misplaced. You are not in the correct historical time period nor are you dealing with the issue I have stated. Why is that? Why is it a fact that you have miscontrued the historical issue and presumed that what you have been referring to is the issue? It is not. The only thing I can do is to encourage you to go to the library and find out about the Open Door Notes and the discussion and direction of American foreign policy at the END of the 19th century. Until then you are not dealing with the issue as I've stated it.
What the hell are you advocating? So jihadists are wrong to try to impose their religion, but industrialized and well-armed countries can impose their markets? Rubbish.
Why is it so hard to understand that countries must defend and advance the free flow of goods and services to keep the international economic wheels turning? To interfere with this process is an invitation to attack. You might consider the U.S.' acquisition of the Philippine Islands and the Treaty of Paris of no account but I see that process as the beginning of the extention of U.S. power internationally and the concurrent economic benefits accrued from these Pacific interests increasing the economic power domestically as well. That the U.S.' commitment in the far Pacific would also bring it into conflict later with the Japanese only indicates to me that if it wasn't the U.S. then the imperialist Japanese would have been our masters in their economic expansionism. I'm glad the U.S. won.