Venezuela and US Imperialism

Well said. Nothing to add to this except Great Post!

 

The United State is not defendable within its own borders. So almost all of our defense forces are in fact expeditionary forces designed to fight overseas.

 

Yes
No
No
No

 

You do understand that the Oxford English dictionary's definition of imperialism means that every country in the world has some sort of imperialist intentions. The only thing that ever changes is a given country's means of achieving
those goals.

That bring said the go to position of every failed regime and people who have failed is to find someone else to blame for the short comings of their ideas which in Maduro's case are legion. Suffice it to say that he and his predecessor took the most prosperous and advanced country in South America and converted it into a destitute wreck with only two classes of people, Maduro and his few remaining supporters and the poor. Meanwhile Maduro continues to plunder the country lining his own pockets. The Venezuelan people have spoken. They voted him out. He refused to leave hanging on to his illegitimate grasp on power by whatever means necessary.

 

We endured very nearly 200 years of it before we gained our freedom

 

Yes, and we now have 100s of years of separation from those events.

We’re still interfering in Venezuela to this day.

 

How so?

 

All of Congress, including the President, stood and applauded their imposter Guaido just last year.

Federal Police laid siege to the Venezuelan Embassy, committed battery upon those Americans trying to help the legitimate staff inside, and eventually drove out those members.

We complain and cry when that happens to our embassies.

 

The British operated as imperialists 100 years ago. That means having physical control of another country, regulating it, controlling it- owning it.
America does not and has not done that. We have been in some places we should not have been, but never with the idea of forcing another country to become an extension of our own.
Unfortunately, trying to help those who will not help themselves is invariably unsuccessful, and we have tried to do that, misjudging the potential outcomes, such as with Vietnam.
I don't believe that there has been any interest in imperialism for a very long time. We have tried to influence, but not to own.

 

Imperialism, according to the definition I have provided within this thread, is the use of political or military force in order to influence and control other nations. America absolutely does this. We may be terrible at nation building, but that doesn’t prevent us from meddling in other countries affairs. When we do this the results are overwhelmingly negative. We expect sovereignty for our nation, but won’t allow many other nations the same rights.

 

This definition-
"Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule over peoples and other countries, for extending political and economic access, power and control, through employing hard power especially military force, but also soft power."

Basically agree, but neither definition states if this is temporary or permanent. They do imply that it is done for the benefit of the imperial force, at the expense of the suppressed nation, intentionally. That is a factor if intent to harm rather than benefit, and something that has not applied to American actions. We occupied Japan, rebuilt it to a free and thriving nation. We occupied parts of Europe after the war too- and via the Marshall plan and many other steps, rebuilt those countries and they are free and independent as well. Can't think of any country we have been in with the intent of colonizing it or stripping it or damaging it. If you know of such an instance, tell me what it is.

We have people in this country right now that want to impose similar control on those who disagree with them- and no doubt, use their power to take property from them and impose undue control over them. I don't consider that as honorable either. That IS something that at least some Americans are responsible for doing, but not national policy- yet.

 

Kissinger would argue that all nations act in self interest and the US is not obligated to support unfriendly nations anymore than anyone else. Of course he needs that to be the case and also if he were to ever set foot in Chile he'd be locked up so take it for what its worth I guess.

 

It seems to me you view the actions of the US Government through rose-colored glasses. I did that as a young man too, but a year in Vietnam caused the glasses to fall.

Reading about our century long actions in Central and South America caused the glasses to fall.

Listening to the BS propaganda about our Global War Of Terror caused the glasses to fall. Watching our Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama consorting with John Brennan for years of murder by drone caused the glasses to fall.

 

I have no problem saying we have stuck our noses in many places it didn't belong, saying that the majority of these should never have happened, with Vietnam being perhaps the most critical lesson that we still didn't learn from. I wasn't there, but I had close friend there. But, none of the places we have done this in have become US colonies or property. That's the aspect of difference, in that imperialism generally means retaining control and ongoing benefits.

This is just a matter of the way one chooses to define the word; I've looked at a couple of the textbook definitions, and don't think it's quite the right word. Stupid might be the right word, but that is too general, not a definitive of the scope of the issue. It's not a matter of denial, but one of seeing the overall picture in balance so judgement doesn't get based on one side of the issue. I think our government perhaps sought to develop allies, but usually wound up doing more damage than good to that objective.

I understand many of the motives, such as a fight against terrorism. However, how we go about it is another thing. Don't have a plan that would be better, but certainly recognize that methods used have often been grave errors.

I don't think that makes us evil predators, the intent is not that. Doesn't mean we haven't botched things up many times.

 

So then, it seems we're down to semantics?

 

Venezuela committed suicide by adopting communism and betting their entire economy on oil. They gambled and they lost. It will be decades before they are functional again. If America is meddling in Venezuela, you can blame it on neocons/neolibs and the deep state that you voted for. From my perspective, the only role America should be playing in Venezuela is preventing their people from fleeing and destabilizing neighboring countries and ensure the fleeing communists don't make it to American shores.

 

Do you mean to say that Venezuela should vote ONLY for those candidates approved by Washington DC?

 

Guaido is the Duly elected president of Venezuela. People will only eat out of dumpsters for so long before they will find some one else to lead them. Maduro has stolen enough from the people if Venezuela. Time to let their chosen leader, Guaido, lead.

 

Dude if you want to pull all the globalist scum out of Washington and imprison them, I am there. I am a nationalist, populist.... it is the neocon Republicans and neolib Democrats and their associated NGOs that are globalists. They are my political enemies.

Biden is one, if you voted for him, you voted for meddling. And.... you are going to get meddling on a massive scale with Biden. The globalist chicken hawks have been muzzled for four long years, they have a lot of killing and bombing to do... I am guessing about 1.5 trillion dollars worth. Check back with me in four years and see if my estimate was close.

 

Would you be interested in showing when Guaido was elected?

He was not elected, ever. He is an imposter working for the CIA.

You are well indoctrinated!

 

I'm with you Dad!

I voted for the LP candidate Jo Jorgensen. That allows me to keep a clear conscience.

The US commits military aggression around the world, and tells its citizen it is Johnny Appleseed spreading democracy. Truly we live in times of universal deception.

The sad part is just how many gullible citizens there are in the US.

 

Why go on the attack? Is that the only way you know of to hold a conversation? I’ve not voted for nor do I support US intervention in countries that do not pose a direct threat to our shores, and before you say it, no, immigrants coming from Venezuela do not constitute a threat to our shores.

The state of Venezuela is far more a cause of US Imperialism in the area than it is their political/economic structure.

 

We communicate with words, and words have meanings. If we start using and defining words in a way differently than their meaning, we aren't communicating- we are distorting.

Personally, I don't think we have interceded in other countries as imperialists, due to the long-term nature of imperialism not being present.

In the 1800's, the British empire was an imperialist empire. One of it's prime colonial areas was India- including many areas around it, such as Burma. It included what is now Pakistan.-

"What does British imperialism mean?
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of the dependent states. imperial government; rule by an emperor or empress."

The British rule over India lasted from 1858 to 1947, 89 years. The British made and enforced the laws, dominated power, resources, trade.

That would be a very clear example of imperialism; we have never done anything remotely close. Find the right terminology. That doesn't change the reality, it clarifies it.

 

A very reasonable post sir.

Would it be fair to say that US imperialism has evolved/mutated compared to British imperialism?

 

If you want to talk about the meanings of words, let’s do that. Here is the definition of Imperialism by Oxford.


im·pe·ri·al·ism
/imˈpirēəˌlizəm/

noun

1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

If we are going by that definition of Imperialism then yes America absolutely practices Imperialism.

You are requiring that Imperialism also include nation building steps, which America fails at horribly.

You’re adding extra requirements for a word to be applicable that simply apply.