General American/Western Crimes, Blunders, and Atrocities Discussion Thread.

[Tribble]

I also suggest that you confine discussion to at the most everything post WW2, we have a history forum for a reason and a mirror thread there would be suitable for prior atrocities, even though history informs the present.

Fair enough.

So, which western atrocity do y'all want to talk about first?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

The entirety of the mess in Indochina from the 50s to tne 80s. That pretty much informed American mentalies for a long time to come.

Or, we can begin with the beginning of the Cold War--McCarthyism in particular--as pick up the Indochina mess along the way.

[Jub]

I know it's pre-WWII but the division of the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman Empire has informed a lot of current geopolitics as well.

[Gandalf]

That one's above my pay grade. The only thing I'm trying to make a point of here is that many acts of the American colonies prior to independence, if people want to go that far back in regard to acts against indigenous peoples, were not acts of official policy by the English (or Spanish, in the case of Florida, or France, in the case of Louisiana) government itself. Some of those acts may have been policy decisions by the colonial government; others (I suspect the majority) may have been independent actions by settlers versus natives. While nominally the colonies were under more or less direct control by the colonizing state, in practice as I noted, they were basically independent outside of taxation. At least until the soldiers showed up, anyway.

It should be noted that as a matter of official policy, in the 1700s at least, the English government wanted to restrict westward migration of its colonial population, in compliance with agreements with the native populations. How well this was enforced is obviously another matter... but the US government post independence did, to its marginal credit, attempt to enforce similar policies on a few occasions, such as expelling settlers from "Indian Territory" (more or less modern Oklahoma) in the mid-late 1800s.

It's really not too vague. The US found people, engaged in genocide, and then built a rich country on the the recently "settled" land. The same state which slaughtered its way from sea to sea is still there today. Still profiting too.

The issue I draw with this is that you aren't making any distinction between acts actually committed as matters of policy (either officially or unofficially) by the US government and its organs, and acts committed outside that aegis by settlers. If Joe Buck got together some of his buddies, drank a little moonshine, and went down and burned some Native dwellings one moonlit night in 1867, is the US culpable for that? Perhaps for not *preventing* it; otherwise I'm not sure the US would bear responsibility for such occurrences. However, I'm not certain of the proportion of such unofficial acts versus officially government ordered and/or endorsed acts, so I can't take any stand on that.

Bear in mind that I am not that certain of how MUCH Westward expansion from the original colonies was US government policy throughout the 1800s-early 1900s (bearing in mind that some states in the West didn't become states until after the turn of the century), and how much was just post-facto incorporation of already settled areas. Certainly there was SOME government encouragement to move west at various points; I don't know how much.

If one wants to get into the nitty-gritty of it, one could debate the morality of migrating populations, as that's part of the equation as well. But I have neither the knowledge nor the time to get into that, and I suspect it's somewhat outside the scope of this thread apart from the specific case of the US population migrating westward.

What difference does it make whether it was "official policy" or not? Those flags and borders didn't just magically move west.

Lots of things aren't official policies, but nonetheless happen.

[Jub]

What difference does it make whether it was "official policy" or not? Those flags and borders didn't just magically move west.

Lots of things aren't official policies, but nonetheless happen.

Yeah, it's hard to care about a policy versus independent action debate when the policy makers benefited from those actions and planted their nation's flag in those bloodsoaked lands. That's kind of the US thing, show up late to a bunch of bloodshed (WWI and WWII are both examples of this), put some boots on the ground, and reap the full benefits as if they did all the work. Then post WWII they started using politics to manufacture new places to put those boots in a series of actions that has continued unbroken since that time.

[Tribble]

Well, the large standing military post WW2 certainly changed things, and accelerated the trend of the US going around bombing places. After all, if the army isnt busy beating the living shit out of a country defending the American Dream it's kind of hard to justify its cost.

Eisenhower warned that the US industrial-military complex was the US's greatest threat for a reason.

[Jub]

Well, the large standing military post WW2 certainly changed things, and accelerated the trend of the US going around bombing places. After all, if the army isnt busy beating the living shit out of a country defending the American Dream it's kind of hard to justify its cost.

Eisenhower warned that the US industrial-military complex was the US's greatest threat for a reason.

Plus building guns/tanks/planes/ships in your state/district plays well with a certain voter base and, more importantly, your generous lobbiests.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

It also guarantees jobs. Robins Air Force Base, for example, is the largest civilian employer in Middle Georgia, if not in the State.

[Tribble]

It also guarantees jobs. Robins Air Force Base, for example, is the largest civilian employer in Middle Georgia, if not in the State.

True, but that funding could have been spent on different jobs that have a more positive impact on the community than "we can blow shit up real good!"

[Batman]

Yeah, but 'we can blow up real good' sells and manufacturing reasons you need 'we can blow up stuff real good' is dead easy (well except on the people you blow up). Restructuring for those (absolutely) more productive jobs would require Republitards to admit they were wrong

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the large standing military post WW2 certainly changed things, and accelerated the trend of the US going around bombing places. After all, if the army isnt busy beating the living shit out of a country defending the American Dream it's kind of hard to justify its cost.

Eisenhower warned that the US industrial-military complex was the US's greatest threat for a reason.

Indeed (on that note, though doubtless regressive by 21st. Century standards, by the standards of his times I would rank Eisenhower as the last good Republican President*). After prior major wars, the US would reduce the size of its military, retaining a small professional corps and relying on a surge of short-term volunteers (or, in desperate straights, conscription) to expand its size the next time a major war started. It was only after the Second World War, and the onset of the Cold War, that the massive permanent force became the norm.

I wonder if that's partly an inevitability of high-tech warfare though. In the past, you could recruit a bunch of volunteers, give them a few weeks' musket drill, and send them into battle. I wonder if the higher training requirements of the technological era are a factor here.


*The beginning of the Republican Party's (and consequently America's) current downward trajectory can probably be traced to the next Republican President, Richard Nixon. Trumpism has its roots in the Southern Strategy as much as anything, and Trump's unbridled corruption, bigotry, and authoritarianism, as well as arguably treason, are simply Nixon on steroids. Hell, some of the key players in the Russia scandal (ie, Roger Stone) got their start in politics under Nixon IIRC.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

It also guarantees jobs. Robins Air Force Base, for example, is the largest civilian employer in Middle Georgia, if not in the State.

True, but that funding could have been spent on different jobs that have a more positive impact on the community than "we can blow shit up real good!"

Not to mention that if that base does shut, the local economy will be fucked hard, especially if that community didn't have contingency plans in place. And it takes a while for said economy to recover, as the former base is repurposed.

(this applies to any base in general. RAFB has strong support amongst community leaders, because they know what's good for them; It's also one of three Air Logistics Centers--four if you include Wright-Pat--in the continental US, so It's unlikely to close)

Unfortunately, some military bases are essential for national defense; my country, however, between pork barrel politics, the agressive use of gunboat diplomacy and nuclear brinksmanship, and unbridled defense sector greed, has gone overboard, something post-Cold War drawdown and BRACs have only slightly attenuated.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. Columbus himself started the ball rolling as Governor of the Indies.

Though some folks insist this country has always been a shining beacon of hope, and that all our problems begin and end with Trump.

Chickies come home to roost.

Trump is the product of a very long and complicated and very often terrible history, and the underlying systemic issues that enabled him to take power will remain (and be further exacerbated by his actions) once he is gone, but it makes a certain sense to focus on him right now. Because the systemic reforms that are required will be impossible as long as he and his cronies are in office. Getting rid of Trump is not the end of the problem, but it's a necessary first step.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

It was only after the Second World War, and the onset of the Cold War, that the massive permanent force became the norm.

The US and the Soviets had empires to maintain in the aftermath of WWII. The US tried an economy of force at the beginning of the Korean War(Task Force Smith), because they'd underestimated the North Korean military, only to find out the hard way they needed more troops and better gear.

*The beginning of the Republican Party's (and consequently America's) current downward trajectory can probably be traced to the next Republican President, Richard Nixon. Trumpism has its roots in the Southern Strategy as much as anything, and Trump's unbridled corruption, bigotry, and authoritarianism, as well as arguably treason, are simply Nixon on steroids. Hell, some of the key players in the Russia scandal (ie, Roger Stone) got their start in politics under Nixon IIRC.

I would say that began during the McCarthy era, though Nixon was McCarthyism key political ally. Eisenhower, during much of his Presidency, enable the pair of them and their comrades in the House, until McCarthy commuted the tactical error of disparaging the Army, when Eisenhower finally acted against McCarthy.

Admittedly, Eisenhower accomplished some good as President, most notably taking steps to end the war in Korea, but his behavior during one of the most disgraceful chapters in our country's history cannot be overlooked.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Indeed. Columbus himself started the ball rolling as Governor of the Indies.

Though some folks insist this country has always been a shining beacon of hope, and that all our problems begin and end with Trump.

Chickies come home to roost.

Trump is the product of a very long and complicated and very often terrible history, and the underlying systemic issues that enabled him to take power will remain (and be further exacerbated by his actions) once he is gone, but it makes a certain sense to focus on him right now. Because the systemic reforms that are required will be impossible as long as he and his cronies are in office. Getting rid of Trump is not the end of the problem, but it's a necessary first step.

No argument from me on any of those points, Rom.

[mr friendly guy]

Wiki has a convenient list. In the old days before wiki I would have to dig up Pilger to read through some of his stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_p ... rt_actions

Covert United States involvement in regime change
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1949–1953 Albania
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1956–57 Syria crisis
1957–58 Indonesian rebellion
1959–2000 Cuba, assassination attempts on Fidel Castro
1959 Cambodian "Bangkok Plot"
1960 Congo coup
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose
1961 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Bolivian coup d'état
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1966 Ghana coup d'état
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1970–73 Chile
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1980–92 Angola, UNITA
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
1982 Chad
1996 Iraq coup attempt
2004 Haiti
2011–2017 Syria, Timber Sycamore

I am going to say TRR statement in the other thread that "until recently," America didn't do it is incorrect.
There are also others where the US express moral support, although not necessarily any evidence they did more than that, such as the attempt overthrow Hugo Chavez who for all his faults, was democratically elected.


I should also point out, and I know people are going to get pissed off here, if other countries are aware of the US doing this, why wouldn't they want to intervene in US politics to ensure an administration more conducive to their geopolitical goals, one of which is maybe getting the US to not interfere in their affairs. Is this like John Sheridan's statement " we did exactly to them what they were trying to do to us, only we did it first."

[U.P. Cinnabar]

The US meddled in Haiti long before 2004. In fact, the US government propped up the Duvaliers. Also, I see no mention of the United States' support for Marcos and his dictatorship.

[mr friendly guy]

It was a list of actions which were covert at the time. Maybe their support of Marcos and the anti Chavez coup was pretty overt.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Oh, okay. My bad.