# CloserThanSyria



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Should Reagan have faced impeachment for invading Grenada with Congressional approval ?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

LOL Of course that should read *with out Congressional approval*.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

The legalities of this type of "adventure" tend to get very murky. The War Powers Act and how it matches up with the Constitution leaves plenty of ambiguity for arguments either way. The same questions can go all the way back to Korea and Viet Nam. The politics of Congressional approval is a different matter.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Joseph Peter said:


> The legalities of this type of "adventure" tend to get very murky. The War Powers Act and how it matches up with the Constitution leaves plenty of ambiguity for arguments either way. The same questions can go all the way back to Korea and Viet Nam. The politics of Congressional approval is a different matter.


I don't think there's ambiguity regarding the U.S. Constitution and war. There are numerous historical examples and statements of the Framers, Founders, and various other American leaders affirming the supremacy of the legislative branch in the realm of war. The role of the chief executive is limited to post-declaration of war activities, and purely defensive/emergency measures to protect the U.S. Congress possesses the lion's share of war making powers, as per Article I of the Constitution. On this, the evidence is overwhelming.

But in addition, there's an intuitive argument - would the Founding generation so soon after breaking away from the autocratic English monarchy and creating a republic of sovereign states with a limited general ("federal") government award a single person - the chief executive - near dictatorial powers in the realm of war? It's inconceivable, despite the claims of the interventionist left and right that seem to dominate the halls of Congress and the White House. The "War Party" is truly bipartisan and in unison when it comes to cries for war, regardless of constitutionality.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

I agree and I am not arguing with you about legalities or about politics, Mr T. Check out the War Powers Act; it just cant be ignored as if it doesnt exist. Seems to me as if Congress has "outsourced" its Constitutional responsibilities or as if Presidents have grabbed more authority under its guise than they would have otherwise. When was the last time Congress actually declared war? If memory serves, WW2.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Joseph Peter said:


> I agree and I am not arguing with you about legalities or about politics, Mr T. Check out the War Powers Act; it just cant be ignored as if it doesnt exist. Seems to me as if Congress has "outsourced" its Constitutional responsibilities or as if Presidents have grabbed more authority under its guise than they would have otherwise. When was the last time Congress actually declared war? If memory serves, WW2.


No arguments at all, Joseph - you seem very bright and honorable!

Yes, the War Powers Act was an abdication of congressional constitutional responsibility, and helped embolden executive overreach (despite its intent to limit such overreach!). You're correct about the last declared war, too. In addition, long before the War Powers Act, we've had the Imperial Presidency, such as McKinley's action in China in 1898, LBJ in Vietnam, and perhaps most egregiously Truman in Korea.

Point is, if Congress allows such executive imperial behavior, then both are complicit in tearing the Constitution to shreds.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Anyone care to answer the question ? ; in corrected form below;

Should Reagan have faced impeachment for invading Grenada without Congressional approval ?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
In answer to your amended question, Hell no! American lives were at stake, the scope of the operation was very limited and it's objectives very, very specific (could hardly be considered an act of war! It actually was more of a rescue mission.), and it sure cut down on all the 'tin-pot' saber rattling coming from south of us.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

" The role of the chief executive is limited to post-declaration of war activities, and purely defensive/emergency measures to protect the U.S. Congress possesses the lion's share of war making powers, as per Article I of the Constitution. On this, the evidence is overwhelming."

And, yet, this has not been the actual approach followed for our lifetimes (unless you are quite aged). Presidents of both parties have taken all manner of military action without Congressional approval. And courts have declined to declare such activities improper or unconstitutional. It's really a political question, not a legal one.


----------



## musicmax (Mar 13, 2012)

Tiger said:


> I don't think there's ambiguity regarding the U.S. Constitution and war. There are numerous historical examples and statements of the Framers, Founders, and various other American leaders affirming the supremacy of the legislative branch in the realm of war. The role of the chief executive is limited to post-declaration of war activities, and purely defensive/emergency measures to protect the U.S. Congress possesses the lion's share of war making powers, as per Article I of the Constitution. On this, the evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> But in addition, there's an intuitive argument - would the Founding generation so soon after breaking away from the autocratic English monarchy and creating a republic of sovereign states with a limited general ("federal") government award a single person - the chief executive - near dictatorial powers in the realm of war? It's inconceivable, despite the claims of the interventionist left and right that seem to dominate the halls of Congress and the White House. The "War Party" is truly bipartisan and in unison when it comes to cries for war, regardless of constitutionality.


This. This. This.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> In answer to your amended question, Hell no! American lives were at stake, the scope of the operation was very limited and it's objectives very, very specific (could hardly be considered an act of war! It actually was more of a rescue mission.), and it sure cut down on all the 'tin-pot' saber rattling coming from south of us.


So the US can invade anybody it feels like as long as it wants to? THe US students studying there, the supposed "lives in danger" said that they felt themselves to be in no danger at all, until the invasion itself (which obviously changed their circumstances) which was based on a "request" from the OECS, who did so after being "requested" so to do by the US. It was condemned by the UN, and some US politicians weren't very pleased either! And what exactly was the "tin-pot" sabre rattling?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Presidents of both parties have taken all manner of military action without Congressional approval. And courts have declined to declare such activities improper or unconstitutional. It's really a political question, not a legal one.


Is it not fair to say that it is _both _a political and legal issue, since all three branches of the federal government (the political class) have failed to uphold their sworn duties to obey the Constitution (some of which consists of structure and roles, while other parts are law)?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Tiger said:


> ...despite the claims of the interventionist left and right that seem to dominate the halls of Congress and the White House. The "War Party" is truly bipartisan and in unison when it comes to cries for war, regardless of constitutionality.


I know I deserve a punch in my self-serving face for quoting myself, but have we all noticed that both Senate and House leaders of _*both *_parties (Democrats Reid and Pelosi and Republicans Boehner, Cantor, and McCain) have placed their imprimatur on a military strike against Syria?

My favorite remark is by Secretary of State Kerry, who blurted out that "we're not going to war" to help assuage (manipulate?) the masses (those that actually have an inkling about what's happening). What the hell does he think launching a missile strike is, other than an act of war? Does he also believe that Syria is precluded from retaliating? What a jackass...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Tiger, I suppose it depends on the meaning of "political" or "legal." As a lawyer, I am probably constrained by my education. One of the jurisprudential doctrines that is in the law is that of the "political question." When the Supreme Court (or any of its subordinate courts) finds that a particular question is a "political question," then it is no longer justiciable. If a court will not rule on it, then it seems that it cannot be called a legal question. So "political question" and "legal question" are mutually exclusive categories, at least in my world. 

Note that calling something a "political question" does not mean that it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL question. Just not something that you're ever going to get a court to rule on. And if a court won't rule, then elections and such are the recourse. So whatever most people want is, functionally, allowed and "correct".


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...Note that calling something a "political question" does not mean that it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL question. Just not something that you're ever going to get a court to rule on. And if a court won't rule, then elections and such are the recourse. So whatever most people want is, functionally, allowed and "correct".


I certainly understand your points, CuffDaddy. Yet, when you say, "And if a court won't rule, then elections and such are the recourse. So whatever most people want is, functionally, allowed and 'correct'" a problem arises. One can argue (strongly) that it was never the role of the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of the Constitution; certainly Article III of that document does not delegate such a power. Additionally, for the federal government to decide on what the federal government's power is/ought to be is, ipso facto, autocratic. Finally, the notion of "what most people want" - whether enlightened opinion or the tyranny of the mob - does not play any role in how the federal government operates. Neither does the Constitution nor the states, for that matter, and for me that is the far larger problem - there is nothing restraining unbridled federal power.

Seems to be a violation of every principle fought for in the War of American Independence...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> So the US can invade anybody it feels like as long as it wants to? THe US students studying there, the supposed "lives in danger" said that they felt themselves to be in no danger at all, until the invasion itself (which obviously changed their circumstances) which was based on a "request" from the OECS, who did so after being "requested" so to do by the US. It was condemned by the UN, and some US politicians weren't very pleased either! And what exactly was the "tin-pot" sabre rattling?


The initial charge on the Operation Urgent Fury tasking order was to secure the safety and security of US citizens. As I recall, TV news coverage of the return of those students to the United States showed a number of them actually getting down and kissing the tarmac. That sounds a bit like they were pretty happy to be home. Also, if things were as innocent as you seem to wish to depict them, how would you explain coup to take out/over the elected government and the Cuban and Soviet presence on the island? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

_And what exactly was the "tin-pot" sabre rattling? You don't seem to have answered that._


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Also, if things were as innocent as you seem to wish to depict them, how would you explain coup to take out/over the elected government and the Cuban and Soviet presence on the island? :icon_scratch:


1) Why should a sovereign state have to explain or justify the presence of anybody in their own country?
2) THe coup is about as explainable as the US backed coup in Chile resulting in the overthrow of the democratically elected government and the murder of the democratically elected president, to be replaced by a neo-fascist military dictator.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

In Grenada, Americans were directly threatened and we had a potential hostage situation. Totally different from Syria where no American interests are at stake and no one is threatening us. It would be an unjustified act of aggression and war crime if Obama attacks without UN approval. Especially since so far there really is NO evidence Assad's government was responsible for the attack.

Bush and Powell had a far more compelling case of WMD's in Iraq, and got UN and Congressional approval (Saddam was in violation of UN at that point because of his WMD efforts). Ironically, Saddam then moved his WMD stockpile to Syria, according to Iraqi generals.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Beresford said:


> In Grenada, Americans were directly threatened and we had a potential hostage situation. Totally different from Syria where no American interests are at stake and no one is threatening us. It would be an unjustified act of aggression and war crime if Obama attacks without UN approval. Especially since so far there really is NO evidence Assad's government was responsible for the attack.
> 
> Bush and Powell had a far more compelling case of WMD's in Iraq, and got UN and Congressional approval (Saddam was in violation of UN at that point because of his WMD efforts). Ironically, Saddam then moved his WMD stockpile to Syria, according to Iraqi generals.


Americans only became threatened and potential hostages _*after*_ the US invasion. The "bottom line", to use an Americanism, was that the US didn't like Grenada's government, so sought a pretext to invade. I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "tin-pot sabre rattling" that was also, apparently, a reason for the invasion. Interestingly, when US lives were at risk following the American backed military led coup in Chile in 1973, no US invasion, or indeed any other action, took place, even though Pinochet's troops did seize and kill Americans. 
The US has a long history of intervention in Central and South American countries, usually justified by some pretext or other. Grenada was just the most recent adventure in the region. Oh, no, actually, the invasion of Panama was the most recent, killing somewhere between 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians, with a ratio of about 4:1 civilians to soldiers.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Chouan: You seem to be fixated on the perspective reported by a few left wing media outlets. As I said in an earlier post, your perceptions differ from the coverage provided by the majority of the news reports of the incident. You so easily deny the harsh reality that a newly elected civilian leader, was arrested and subsequently assassinated and replaced by an out of control military, advised and encouraged by Cuban military advisers, with a fresh contingent of Soviet "diplomats" on hand to observe the proceedings. Any time such a forceful change of government is taking place and the armed chaos is building, people (not just medical students) are placed in potentially grave danger. Given the history of military adventurism demonstrated by that dynamic duo of communist states (Cuba and the Soviet Union) in our southern hemisphere, I sense the US was well advised to act...and so they did and in such grand fashion! You so conveniently overlook the fact that when the US has gotten involved in the affairs of our central and south american neighbors, the Soviets have been advising, equipping and training the opposition. Come on, slick...they were, after all, the lynch pin in the "Evil Empire!" 

PS: How do you justify the Soviet Union playing around in our side of the globe at all? Shouldn't some of your ire be focused toward them...or do you just not cast your stones at comrades?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chouan: PS: How do you justify the Soviet Union playing around in our side of the globe at all? Shouldn't some of your ire be focused toward them...or do you just not cast your stones at comrades?


I suspect Chouan's true comrades are safe from any stones he may cast.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chouan: You seem to be fixated on the perspective reported by a few left wing media outlets. As I said in an earlier post, your perceptions differ from the coverage provided by the majority of the news reports of the incident. You so easily deny the harsh reality that a newly elected civilian leader, was arrested and subsequently assassinated and replaced by an out of control military, advised and encouraged by Cuban military advisers, with a fresh contingent of Soviet "diplomats" on hand to observe the proceedings. Any time such a forceful change of government is taking place and the armed chaos is building, people (not just medical students) are placed in potentially grave danger.


Apart from the reference to Cubans and Russians, you could be talking about Chile in 1973. A democratically elected civilian government overthrown by a military coup, resulting in the assassination of the democratically elected civilian leader, and during which US citizens were in fact killed by the "out of control", perhaps, soldiery of the military coup leaders, advised and encouraged by US military advisers, with a contingent of US "diplomats" on hand to observe the proceedings. Many Chilenos were placed in lethal danger by the attitudes and views of the new government, and many were indeed killed.
The only difference between the two episodes is that when the Cubans and the Russians were perceived to be the danger to US citizens in Grenada, the US invaded the place. When the activities of US advisers and "operatives" was an actual danger to the lives of US citizens in Chile, resulting in actual deaths, the US backed the military regime of Pinochet, whose soldiers actually killed the US citizens.



eagle2250 said:


> Given the history of military adventurism demonstrated by that dynamic duo of communist states (Cuba and the Soviet Union) in our southern hemisphere, I sense the US was well advised to act...and so they did and in such grand fashion! You so conveniently overlook the fact that when the US has gotten involved in the affairs of our central and south american neighbors, the Soviets have been advising, equipping and training the opposition. Come on, slick...they were, after all, the lynch pin in the "Evil Empire!"


The US had a history of military adventurism in central America long before the Soviet Union existed! Was the US occupation of Nicaragua during most of the 1920's and 30's because of Russian involvement? Or the occupation of the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1922? Or was this simply the US imposing it's political will be use of military force?



eagle2250 said:


> PS: How do you justify the Soviet Union playing around in our side of the globe at all? Shouldn't some of your ire be focused toward them...or do you just not cast your stones at comrades?


Your side of the globe? US bases in Europe, Turkey, Diego Garcia, Okinawa, Japan, South Korea, etc etc. Just what is "your side of the globe"? In any case this seems to be a "they did it too" defence, which cuts no ice when kids use it! I don't care for Russian Empire building either. I would take issue with any member who justified the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, for example, or their invasion of Georgia. It's just that the only members who try to justify their country's invasion of other countries seem to be Americans.

BY the way, you've still not explained what you meant by the "tin-pot sabre rattling" which seemed to annoy you and give a further justification for the invasion.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> ......
> .........
> The US had a history of military adventurism in central America long before the Soviet Union existed! Was the US occupation of Nicaragua during most of the 1920's and 30's because of Russian involvement? Or the occupation of the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1922? Or was this simply the US imposing it's political will be use of military force?
> .............................
> ...


Are you referring to the "Banana Wars," which in fact stretched from 1898 to 1934. If such is the case, you mentioned Nicaragua, but you left out Honduras, Panama, and Haiti and once again you neglect to mention the US interests that were threatened. Granted the interests being protected were financial and not so much a threat to life and limb, but those financial interests were not insignificant. As such interests were lawlessly seized and American proprietors asked for intervention from their government, such assistance was provided. Now you and I could argue fruitlessly on end that the diplomacy attempted both prior to and throughout the military actions was adequate or not, never making progress in convincing one another of the timber of one another's arguments, however the fact remains we were there and our aim was to protect our citizens financial interests. Besides, I think it was in Haiti in 1920 or 1921 that the legendary marine 'Chesty Puller' won the first of his five Navy Crosses. The conflicts may have been insignificant or at least unjustified in your estimation, but the fighting was just as fierce and the participants just as valiant!

PS: My example of some current 'Cyber-rattling': Your incessant rants against the US!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Are you referring to the "Banana Wars," which in fact stretched from 1898 to 1934. If such is the case, you mentioned Nicaragua, but you left out Honduras, Panama, and Haiti and once again you neglect to mention the US interests that were threatened. Granted the interests being protected were financial and not so much a threat to life and limb, but those financial interests were not insignificant. As such interests were lawlessly seized and American proprietors asked for intervention from their government, such assistance was provided. Now you and I could argue fruitlessly on end that the diplomacy attempted both prior to and throughout the military actions was adequate or not, never making progress in convincing one another of the timber of one another's arguments, however the fact remains we were there and our aim was to protect our citizens financial interests. Besides, I think it was in Haiti in 1920 or 1921 that the legendary marine 'Chesty Puller' won the first of his five Navy Crosses. The conflicts may have been insignificant or at least unjustified in your estimation, but the fighting was just as fierce and the participants just as valiant!
> 
> PS: My example of some current 'Cyber-rattling': Your incessant rants against the US!


I would suggest that if any other country repeatedly invaded neighbouring countries on the basis of protecting their financial or economic interests they would be universally, and rightly, condemned for aggression or military adventurism, yet you consider, it seems, that American use of force against independent sovereign states is reasonable and justified. You don't seem to recognise the hypocrisy inherent in your arguments. If the US invades a country, you consider it reasonable. If another country invades a country you regard it as aggression and unreasonable. When Britain and France did that kind of thing in the 19th century it was considered to be Imperialism. Yet the US seems to consider such actions as reasonable, curious, I think.
Could you explain how my comments could be considered to be "rants", please? I'm inclined to think that they are reasoned arguments, using evidence.
I'm still awaiting your "tin-pot sabre rattling" explanation.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Using your example of the "Banana Wars" as a source of reference, can you not see the connection between my use of the term "tin-pot saber rattling" with the leadership exercised in each of the involved countries that presumed to unilaterally decide to illegally seize and (in some cases) nationalize another sovereign nations financial interests in each of the respective central and south american locations? The message is, and I believe quite rightly so, if you present a threat to our borders and/or threaten or harm our citizens, there will be a price to be paid. I'm comfortable with that. if you are not, it is your problem, not mine. America and every other nation has a right to defend their borders and people! 

As for my comment about your incessant rants against the US, you have done little else with your participation in these fora, since first joining. It get's more than just a bit tedious and I am simply expressing that reaction on my part. Is that OK with you? Chouan, I will concede that the USA is not perfect, but it comes as close to that mark as any other nation that I can think of and closer than most that come to mind! 

If someone were to buy you some new sheet music, could you try singing a different tune every once in awhile?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Using your example of the "Banana Wars" as a source of reference, can you not see the connection between my use of the term "tin-pot saber rattling" with the leadership exercised in each of the involved countries that presumed to unilaterally decide to illegally seize and (in some cases) nationalize another sovereign nations financial interests in each of the respective central and south american locations? The message is, and I believe quite rightly so, if you present a threat to our borders and/or threaten or harm our citizens, there will be a price to be paid. I'm comfortable with that. if you are not, it is your problem, not mine. America and every other nation has a right to defend their borders and people!


To correct you, your reference to the rather patronising term "Banana Wars", not mine. I referred to repeated American military adventures and invasions. You trivialised them with your description. A common American expression for those many American invasions of central American countries, which isn't used elsewhere. Your responses seem to be generalised rather than specific, and you haven't responded to those specific cases. I assume from that that you're also happy about the US arranged coup in Chile that resulted in the deaths of US citizens? However, to respond to your generalisations again with specifics, how could the Dominican Republic's inability to form a stable government be a threat to US borders? How could Sandino's opposition to Somoza's regime in Nicaragua be such a threat to US borders that Nicaragua needed to be invaded and occupied for 20 odd years? You suggest that the US has the right to protect it's interests, through military force, yet you deny that right to other countries. Do you not see the hypocrisy? 
If an independent sovereign state decides to nationalise property or businesses, within it's borders and within it's legal juristiction, by legal process, it isn't an illegal act. An independent sovereign nation is fully entitled to act unilaterally within it's own borders, according to it's own laws. The US is one of the main critics of the concept of "international law" on the basis that it might not coincide with US law. You can't be immune, as it were, from international law, whilst imposing it on others. Again, it is hypocrisy. Britain and France thought that Egypt's nationalisation of the Suez Canal was an illegal act, and attempted, successfully, to use military force to regain control. The US thought not, and condemned Britain and France's action on the grounds that their use of military force was illegal, resulting in Egypt retaining control. Yet you are suggesting that if such a confiscation of US owned property occurred in Central America, then America *is* entitled to use military force, when other countries aren't. Again, do you not see the hypocrisy?



eagle2250 said:


> As for my comment about your incessant rants against the US, you have done little else with your participation in these fora, since first joining. It get's more than just a bit tedious and I am simply expressing that reaction on my part. Is that OK with you? Chouan, I will concede that the USA is not perfect, but it comes as close to that mark as any other nation that I can think of and closer than most that come to mind!
> 
> If someone were to buy you some new sheet music, could you try singing a different tune every once in awhile?


Could I point out to you that another member started this thread about Grenada, not me. I was simply expressing my reaction, which doesn't seem to be ok with you Eagle2250. I would also like to reiterate that just because you don't like the arguments you're being presented with it doesn't mean that either a) they're a rant, or that b) they're anti-American. I am by no means anti-American, I very much dislike dishonest and hypocritical double standards being applied by people about the aggressive actions of their country. If a Russian member tried to justify Russian aggression I would take the same stand. As I said earlier, it seems that some American members can't stop themselves from praising their nations military adventures whilst condemning the military adventures of others. If they stop justifying US aggression, I'll stop criticising it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Chouan: your post above once again over looks statements I have made in earlier postings that "indeed the US has not always made good choices for it's allies in past excursions" and in fact, if you read athe second statement of mine that you have quoted above, you might note that I do acknowledge the US has not been perfect in their decisions, but that they compare favorably with most other nations. In an earlier post you offered a comparison of the US basing in European locations with Russia's actions around the globe and questioned what the difference might be. The difference is we negotiate and pay fair market value (and in many instances, well above market value) for our basing privileges. Many in Europe as well as so many of the central and south american countries we have been discussing have been very willing to benefit from Americas largess and then have found it convenient to bite the hand that feeds them. "Let's allow those wealthy Americans to spend their money and invest their knowledge in developing our agricultural systems and then lay claim to those assets before those overly rich Americans can recoup their investments." You might buy that BS Chouan, but pardon me if I choose not to do so. No one is attempting to justify US or any other aggression. Some of us just do not buy into your conclusions and or condemnation of the US.

...and by the way, Banana Wars is not my patronizing term, but rathe the "patronizing term" applied to the conflicts in question in the history books and indeed in this cyber-age of ours, in Wikipedia! Does this mean I can call you patronizing the next time you pull a term from the history texts?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chouan: your post above once again over looks statements I have made in earlier postings that "indeed the US has not always made good choices for it's allies in past excursions" and in fact, if you read athe second statement of mine that you have quoted above, you might note that I do acknowledge the US has not been perfect in their decisions, but that they compare favorably with most other nations.


Compare favourably with *most other nations* in what way? Once again you're justifying US military adventures, and selective condemnation based on national self interest, or commercial self interest, by suggesting that other states did it too, only worse.



eagle2250 said:


> In an earlier post you offered a comparison of the US basing in European locations with Russia's actions around the globe and questioned what the difference might be. The difference is we negotiate and pay fair market value (and in many instances, well above market value) for our basing privileges.


Whether or not you pay "fair market value" has nothing to do with the argument. You asserted that Russian influence in Grenada was wrong because it was in your side of the globe. I asked you what was your side of the globe, pointing out that the US have a substantial military presence in Europe, Asia, the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean as well as the Americas, some are in the territory of allies, others are in the US overseas empire. So, just what is your side of the globe?



eagle2250 said:


> Many in Europe as well as so many of the central and south american countries we have been discussing have been very willing to benefit from Americas largess and then have found it convenient to bite the hand that feeds them. "Let's allow those wealthy Americans to spend their money and invest their knowledge in developing our agricultural systems and then lay claim to those assets before those overly rich Americans can recoup their investments."


Largesse? That's a curious word to use. Could you give me some examples of the "many in Europe" that you mention? I'm not sure that impoverished share-croppers and those in debt peonage in central America are aware of being supported by America. Those workers exploited by United Fruit in Nicaragua who became Sandino's supporters were very quickly put in their place by the US military, and placed under the despotism of the Somozas in order to maintain their subservience. I'm not sure that they were "biting the hand that fed them". On the other hand, the US has a long history of using military force to keep workers under the control of their employers even inside the US, so using military force to keep the poorest in their place, and protect US profits, in central America would come naturally.



eagle2250 said:


> You might buy that BS Chouan, but pardon me if I choose not to do so. No one is attempting to justify US or any other aggression. Some of us just do not buy into your conclusions and or condemnation of the US.


Of course you are justifying US aggression, each of your posts on this subject, including this one, is a justification of US aggression and military adventurism. With your reference to what you and fellow Americans seem to refer to as the "Banana Wars" you seem to think that using lethal military force to protect US investment and the imposition of a violent and tyrannical despotism, that is favourable to US interests at the expense of the local population is quite reasonable. That suggests to me that you are justifying US aggression.



eagle2250 said:


> ...and by the way, Banana Wars is not my patronizing term, but rathe the "patronizing term" applied to the conflicts in question in the history books and indeed in this cyber-age of ours, in Wikipedia! Does this mean I can call you patronizing the next time you pull a term from the history texts?


Except that the term is almost exclusively an American one. I assume that your use of Wkipedia to support your view suggests that you accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information? You can use any expression you like, of course, but if you use a patronising term, I will refer to it as a patronising term. Using "Banana Wars" to describe the US invasions and military occupations of many central American countries, resulting in serious loss of life and liberty does tend to trivialise what was happening.
I note that you still haven't explained why it was fine for the US to invade Grenada because of it's coup, but an invasion didn't occur in Chile, despite the same conditions applying.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

An interesting comment on the "Banana Wars" by a US Marine General Officer:

*"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street, and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."*

​


----------

