Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

[Warren Dew]

They conquered all their provinces through force of arms. Gaul, Britain, Iberia, North Africa, the Balkans, Turkey, the Levant, Egypt, etc. They didn't just exert economic influence -- the conquered. Like the Brits, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, etc. after them, they went out and took significant properties around the globe.

And the U.S. conquered western Europe by force of arms in 1944. So?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's all really being run by an Irish cabal.

I'll murder you momentarily.

Shhhhhhh!

If it's Irish, wouldn't it be an O'Cabal?

[Coito ergo sum]

They conquered all their provinces through force of arms. Gaul, Britain, Iberia, North Africa, the Balkans, Turkey, the Levant, Egypt, etc. They didn't just exert economic influence -- the conquered. Like the Brits, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, etc. after them, they went out and took significant properties around the globe.

And the U.S. conquered western Europe by force of arms in 1944. So?

The US participated in the invasion of Europe in 1944 and 45, but then marched right back out again. We never held Europe as part of an American Empire. The point was to end the German Empire, and let it's pieces go back to being countries. The Romans created an actual Empire.

[Cormac]

When you're reading my reply - please note that I'm simply responding to your rejection of the idea that the USA can be characterised as an Empire. I am not at all blind to the failings, machievellianism, criminality, and imperial ambitions of other countries - not least of which is the EU (not a country yet), France, Britain (once again), and so on and so on.

I'm simply talking about the US and whether or not it can be characterised as an Empire.

Sure, and you used as an example the American involvement in the Mossadegh incident, which hardly expanded US territory or brought Iran under US hegemony. It brought Iran under British hegemony to protect British interests. The US interest was in preventing it from going Soviet.

Does that make it less of an Imperial act?

Clearly, the US acts in its interests. Britain used to act unilaterally in its own interest. Now it sees that its interests are inherently bound up with US interests, so it falls into line.

Now - in response:

They didn't conquer ALL their possessions through force of arms, as it happens. Some leaders simply gave themselves to Rome in a kind of "Surrender and Regrant" scenario.

Very few -- the Caesar conquered Gaul and claimed to have killed 1,000,000 Gauls. They conquered Iberia from the Carthaginians, and they conquered North Africa from Carthage as well. They conquered the Levant with Roman soldiers. They conquered Egypt militarily and the threat of military force and they conquered the Baltics and Dacia by force. The bulk of the Roman Empire was conquered and held by force of arms.

By contrast, the US has Puerto Rico, which can vote anytime to be its own country. And, we have uninhabited islands, or barely inhabited islands like Guam and the Northern Marianas.

And a string of other territories that the US rules through client governments - such as once was Saddam Hussein - and as you mentioned, Pinochet.

Neither did the Europeans ALWAYS conquer by force of arms.

They did a lot, and enough to be Empires in fact, and they, in fact, called themselves Empires. That was when being an Empire was cool.

In fact, Egypt and several others were conquered by the British and French because they allowed themselves to be treated like Fois Gras Geese, and they collaborated in their own diet of debt. They took on more and more debt to attempt to modernise and keep up with Europe that they bankrupted themselves - and in waltzed the despicable European Empires.

The British fought a war against Egypt in like 1880 which resulted in British control. They did a whole naval bombardment of Alexandria. They didn't leave for 70 years, until the Revolution in Egypt in the 50s. REvolution against British rule....

Even with economic influences, the African countries were held by force of arms, and the Brits set up colonial governments run by Brit governors, like the French and the others. That's empire behavior. Setting up a functioning democracy that doesn't have to listen to the "empire" is not the same thing.

1. There wasn't a tide that rose and stayed you know. The tide of imperial control went in and out - and not all conquering was initiated or achieved militarily.

2. I'm not an apologist for European Imperialism. My country suffered under it for long enough.

3. What functioning democracy has America set up? (setting aside Europe after World War 2 - which was pretty good - in many ways).

As regards the Shah and Britain's involvement - I've said that many times on this very forum. Britain was the initiator of that particular coup in order to protect their interest in Gulf Oil - now known as BP (of Deepwater infamy). CIA took over when it was clear that Britain were no longer able to carry off the coup.

Your description of the coup is pretty good - except that the installation of the Shah by the CIA was not the same as the earlier installation. The later installation put him into supreme power, and coincidentally, retained foreign control of Iran's oil.

There wasn't an installation of the Shah when Operation Boot/Ajax occcurred in 1953. The Shah was the Shah and Mossadegh was his prime minister. The Shah participated in the coup because the Brits and Merkins twisted his arm, and he was told if he opposed them, then he would go too. The Shah stayed in power as he had been from 1941 on when he was installed to replace his dad.

Nonetheless, he ruled autocratically after that, in a way that he hadn't been able to during Mossadeq's government. He was installed during the coup.

Right now, (as far as I am aware) the US has not officially recognised the current coup in Egypt as a coup "officially". This is because it would force the US to stop providing assistance to Egypt. So, there is de facto support for the coup in Egypt.

There is, as the OP of the thread relates, a waffley policy on the part of the US. We don't want to withdraw aid, but we don't want to support either side. We're trying to walk a tightrope. I'm sure withdrawal of aid is "tacit" support for something.

Yep. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the US has never hesitated to overthrow democratically elected governments in order to replace them with totalitarian military dictatorships. Pinochet being a good example. Hussein being another.

(Incidentally - the EU is similarly avoiding the issue, as are pretty much all EU member states - to their shame).

Sure, the Europeans give aid to Egypt and Egypt was riled up when the EU mentioned it might "review" its aid to Egypt.

This is one of the reasons that I detest the amount of sovereignty that has been granted to the EU. Ireland is a neutral country, but we are now, perforce, involved in the Imperial adventures of other EU states. (In my view, our involvement is a breach of our constitution).

Edit - oh, and yes, the Chagos Islands are de facto British possessions (although the courts have ruled that Britain cannot legally prevent the return of the Chagos Islanders to their home - a ruling that the British Government is contendedly ignoring - in breach of their own laws). However, Britain is a client state of the USA. Therefore, it often acts to further its joint strategic interests with the USA.

The UK is a "client state" of the US? I've never heard that seriously contemplated. It's a misuse of the term "client state" just as "empire" is being misused. A client state would be like, Egypt after 1922 and Iraq after 1932 -- they remained "client states" of the UK. It's where local rulers and governors are "clients." And, places like Nigeria and Malaya were indirectly ruled by Britain. The closest thing the US would have had to client states would be like Cuba until Castro's revolution or Chile under Pinochet, where the US exerted a lot of influence, but we never had the kind of indirect rule or client rulers that the European countries had.

I note how quickly and eagerly Tony jumped for George.

Indirect rule is as indirect rule does.

And, incidentally, there is a gigantic US military base on the Chagos Islands, known as Diego Garcia - which is the reason that Britain and the USA is riding roughshod over the rights of the Chagos Islanders.

What you calla "gigantic US military base" is not called Diego Garcia, it's "on" Diego Garcia, and it is a "joint" military base with the Brits. Mostly Merkin stuff at this point, but it's still a Brit island and if the Brits want the US off, I suppose they can tell us to go. However, it's in the Brit interest that we are there, and it's in the US interest that we are there too. Win win. Except for the Chagossians that were expelled, apparently, although I'm not clear on all the details of the expulsions, apparently a Brit Supreme Court dismissed the Chagossians' case, so that's done.

It isn't what the Chagos Islanders call it.

You're being a bit nit-picky, I think, given that the various entities there invariably have the name Diego Garcia in their name - i.e. Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia.

Also - there is nothing there except the US base.

[Cormac]

It's all really being run by an Irish cabal.

I'll murder you momentarily.

Shhhhhhh!

If it's Irish, wouldn't it be an O'Cabal?

[Jason]

Cheese. Imperial Cheese.

[Warren Dew]

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're aiming at the wrong act. Removal of Mubarek was just as much a coup as removal of Morsi. If anything, the average person in Egypt faults the U.S. for its support of Morsi, rather than the opposite.

[Cormac]

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're aiming at the wrong act. Removal of Mubarek was just as much a coup as removal of Morsi. If anything, the average person in Egypt faults the U.S. for its support of Morsi, rather than the opposite.

Perhaps.

Another view would be that this latest political tournabout is merely the latest round of a dynamic that has been in play since the fall their the Ottoman Empire.

...and the US does get blamed.

The consequence of the game of Realpolitik.

[Seth]

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're aiming at the wrong act. Removal of Mubarek was just as much a coup as removal of Morsi. If anything, the average person in Egypt faults the U.S. for its support of Morsi, rather than the opposite.

Perhaps.

Another view would be that this latest political tournabout is merely the latest round of a dynamic that has been in play since the fall their the Ottoman Empire.

...and the US does get blamed.

The consequence of the game of Realpolitik.

The good thing for Egyptians is that the Egyptian military leadership was trained by the United States, which instilled in that leadership the understanding that the military serves the PEOPLE of Egypt, not any particular political party or leader. And it's a damned good thing for the entire world that the military will not abide the rise of Islamic tyranny and despotism.

[Cormac]

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're aiming at the wrong act. Removal of Mubarek was just as much a coup as removal of Morsi. If anything, the average person in Egypt faults the U.S. for its support of Morsi, rather than the opposite.

Perhaps.

Another view would be that this latest political tournabout is merely the latest round of a dynamic that has been in play since the fall their the Ottoman Empire.

...and the US does get blamed.

The consequence of the game of Realpolitik.

The good thing for Egyptians is that the Egyptian military leadership was trained by the United States, which instilled in that leadership the understanding that the military serves the PEOPLE of Egypt, not any particular political party or leader. And it's a damned good thing for the entire world that the military will not abide the rise of Islamic tyranny and despotism.

Yes. The military serves the people. That is precisely what has happened in Egypt.

[Warren Dew]

Yes. The military serves the people. That is precisely what has happened in Egypt.

Considering there were million person protests against Morsi before the Egyptian military intervened, that's exactly what happened.

That doesn't disprove your imperialism argument, though, since the U.S. opposed that intervention.

[Cormac]

Yes. The military serves the people. That is precisely what has happened in Egypt.

Considering there were million person protests against Morsi before the Egyptian military intervened, that's exactly what happened.

That doesn't disprove your imperialism argument, though, since the U.S. opposed that intervention.

It is just that the military in Egypt has a long history of deposing governments when they don't like them. Democratically elected or not.

When the people speak through democratic elections and elect a government - and the military overthrow that government not long afterwards - there is something wrong somewhere.

[Svartalf]

I'd still like to know whether the MB got elected because the Egyptian people really support them or because they were the only party with a ready propaganda machine ... One of the answers would push me to advocate a massive invasion from the Western powers and a general pogrom against the Non Coptic population, if only to let them know how the Christians liked it living under their boot.

[Tyrannical]

Even if the MB got 60%, the other 40% hate them. That's enough to cause serious problems, and oh. The army hates the MB too, which is why you have the situation we have. I think the army would have eventually tried to over throw the MB and the protests gave them a popular excuse. Perhaps you noticed the army only shot pro-MB protestors

[Warren Dew]

Yes. The military serves the people. That is precisely what has happened in Egypt.

Considering there were million person protests against Morsi before the Egyptian military intervened, that's exactly what happened.

That doesn't disprove your imperialism argument, though, since the U.S. opposed that intervention.

It is just that the military in Egypt has a long history of deposing governments when they don't like them. Democratically elected or not.

When the people speak through democratic elections and elect a government - and the military overthrow that government not long afterwards - there is something wrong somewhere.

Indeed. And "somewhere" is exactly where the Morsi government repudiated the constitution under which it was elected, thus invalidating its own election.