PDA

View Full Version : Oh POTUS regs, and all. I have an assignment for you.



Ken Bora
11-21-2012, 10:37 PM
Oh POTUS regs, and all. I have an assignment for you.

I would like you to think about and answer this question.
“Why do we “Nation Build”?”
The “we” is The United States of America.

And before we start,
Franco, I know….. Really I do know….. I know what your about to type. I know you know that I know that you know the election is over. And everyone knows the policy of the party you so proudly champion.
We know.;)
This is not a party question. It is a policy and if anything a philosophy question. Please pretend your speaking to a space alien or foreign exchange student.

Why do we Nation Build?
Go as deep back as you like. When did it start? What did we do? The why behind it.

I have a ruff draft of my answer rolling round in my head. I’ll firm it up on the morrow still hunting for white tail deer with my Dad and Brother.
Paper and desks are for wimps.:cool:
Give it some thought and tell us what you think.

murral stark
11-21-2012, 10:59 PM
I have thought about this quite a bit. I don't understand why we still have military installations in countries that the war has been over for 50 plus years. I don't know about the nation building thing, but I believe that all the bases we have in all of these countries, is the most wasteful spending I have ever seen. If a country wants help and they ask us, then we should go help. If they don't ask, we are not in their country. Take care of our own country and let them fend for themselves. we should not be the babysitters to the world. those countries don't send us billions of dollars in foreign aid when we have a natural disaster, so why should we send them billions of dollars in foreign aid. Turn about is fair play.

BonMallari
11-22-2012, 12:25 AM
for some archaic reason We (as a country) used to do it under the banner of spreading democracy throughout the world, and maybe at one time that was all good....militarily speaking we did it so we could stick our bases in far away places all under the guise of defeating the threat of the 60's ..Communism....

Unfortunately IMO we tried to build a "bridge too far"...we try to nation build in countries that might have been better off at the hands of benevolent dictators...it is no longer our destiny to be the keeper of the free world,especially when our own model is very dysfunctional..I know its hard to sit on the sidelines while people are being slaughtered at the hands of their own countrymen, but the US can no longer be the policeman of the world

I wish the solution were as easy as voila lets bring all the troops home and lets suspend all foreign aide, but its not that simple..its going to take the American public to send the right group of legislators to stop the funding..a President alone cant do it..Congress holds the checkbook, once the voting public holds the politicians feet to the fire is the only way it will change

road kill
11-22-2012, 05:42 AM
Follow the money!

Franco
11-22-2012, 09:21 AM
Oh POTUS regs, and all. I have an assignment for you.

I would like you to think about and answer this question.
“Why do we “Nation Build”?”
The “we” is The United States of America.

And before we start,
Franco, I know….. Really I do know….. I know what your about to type. I know you know that I know that you know the election is over. And everyone knows the policy of the party you so proudly champion.
We know.;)
This is not a party question. It is a policy and if anything a philosophy question. Please pretend your speaking to a space alien or foreign exchange student.

Why do we Nation Build?
Go as deep back as you like. When did it start? What did we do? The why behind it.

I have a ruff draft of my answer rolling round in my head. I’ll firm it up on the morrow still hunting for white tail deer with my Dad and Brother.
Paper and desks are for wimps.:cool:
Give it some thought and tell us what you think.

There is no answer beyond politics;

RK hit the nail on the head with a big part of it. There is billions to be made by companies empolyed to nation build and their lobby is strong. It return of financial support, our politicians award huge contracts to corporations, including Defense contractors, in an attempt in making more of the world like us. It has worked in most parts of the world except in the mideast. And, at a different time in our history when the world wasn't fighting the new crusade.

The other part of the equation is our own national insecurities. For some reason beyond my comprehension, we have a need to make the rest of the world like us. Disaster aide is one thing, that is a responsibilty of wealtheir nations. But, the idea that we have to remake nations in our own image, in the 21st Century is not only costly but folly.


"Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to liberty; it is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed." – Charles Caleb Colton

Golddogs
11-22-2012, 12:05 PM
The US's big push to go global began after WW1 and 2 and the rapid declinre of the British empire and the loss of French, German and Spanish controlled territories. To a small extent, it began after the Spanish American War and the loss of the Phillipines to US control.

With the European countries infrastructure devastated, the door was opened for US fortune 500 companies to go in and pick the bones of these nations, and thus the foothold into what was a pretty closed market.

The same formula played out in Japan and parts of Asia.

The Mideast was a bit different. Following WW1, our biggest allies in the region were the Arabs. Many promises were made and big oil was granted a foothold. When Israel was granted nation rights, things became unglued and most of the oil became nationalized and the constant turmoil develped.

Most of this can be traced back to $$$, and less to the altruistic motives of " Nation Building" In fact, prior to WW1, the US was a very isolationist country, wanting little or nothing to do with the rest of the worlds problems. But after Pearl Harbor and once $$$ was in sight, positions changed.

Captains and the Kings Regards

zeus3925
11-22-2012, 01:06 PM
There has always been some interest in nation building going back to the revolts of the Spanish colonies in Latin America. There was some interest in reestablishing a Jewish homeland in the Middle East as early in the 19 century by American Christians Zionists. Interestedly, one of the proponents of Christian Zionism was a George Bush, a relative of the presidential family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_%28biblical_scholar%29

I think nation building began in earnest after the defeat of Spain in the Spanish American War. Just reading about the US occupation of the Philippines. Cuba was another example. American gunboat diplomacy came into its own with the establishment of Panama, when Colombia refused to give us rights to dig the canal. In the 20's and 30's there was constant American intervention in the Banana Republics.

2tall
11-22-2012, 03:56 PM
I agree with RK! I think this is the 2nd time in history! It is all based on the income of big oil and the defense industry. At one time it was disguised as "saving the world from communism", but underneath all the rhetoric, I think Phil Ochs came close to having it right! Be sure to listen to the last verse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaTbI7FCLl0&feature=fvwberel

Duck Blind
11-22-2012, 04:04 PM
If we don't our enemies will. I have done quite a bit of "nation building" type work in Haiti. Venezuela and Cuba are just waiting for us to stop our work there. If we do, they'll be in like Flynn. Better us than them, right? Our southern maritime boundaries are as critical as a our territorial boundaries - specifically from a drug interdiction and immigration policy standpoint.

Golddogs
11-22-2012, 06:11 PM
In the 20's and 30's there was constant American intervention in the Banana Republics.

Boy I hate it when my memory slips. I forgot about US Foods role in central America and Cuba. Big business and big money played a huge role in establlishing US friendly dictators in that region.

Eric Johnson
11-23-2012, 08:43 PM
I have thought about this quite a bit.... If a country wants help and they ask us, then we should go help.

What countries have we been in for over 50 years? I can think of only Western Europe and S. Korea.

1. In Western Europe, the strategy won. In the early 80's there was a grave concern that Western Europe was indeed suddenly vulnerable. Thus began the build-up that brought the GLCM, the 600 ship navy, and major growth of both Army and Air Forces in Europe. If this build-up had not occurred, any war in Europe would have been over in roughly a week. This was because the US didn't have the air frames and ships to deliver a credible counter-force in less time. It was felt that the Soviets would need 7 days to move their forces into readiness while we could have a division or two .... and NO EQUIPMENT...across in the same time. We saw roughly the same thing in Gulf War I....weeks and weeks of transporting equipment. (In fact, a significant portion of the men and equipment needed for Gulf I was drawn from Europe.)

The forces are there now (much smaller forces) as a contribution to NATO and to have a place to rotate them in and out of the ME. Even that mission is declining. If I named the just the air bases that have closed in Europe in the past 20 years, you'd be amazed....RAF Fairford, RAF Upper Heyford, RAF Bentwaters, RAF Woodbury, RAF Bentwaters, Sembach AB, BitBurg AB, Rhein-Main AB, Hahn AB, Zweibrucken AB, Torrejon AB, one of the bases in Italy, Comiso AB, and Hellenikon AB. Every one of these (except Hellenikon) held a single wing (24 aircraft) and about 2000 people. European end strength used to be about 1,000,000. Now I'd guess it's more like 350-400,000.

2. In S. Korea there is a small force (about a division and a half) and two air wings. They serve as a trip wire that causes the N. Koreans to think twice about invading. If S. Korea were to be invaded, the US forces would contribute but end up falling back. They would serve their purpose of holding the North until we could me the rest of the force into place. It's basically the same strategy as before the Korean War except the US force is larger and remains on alert. Part of the reason that worked was that N Korea had a relatively primative land and air force. That's not so true today and folks really have their thinking caps on about this.

All of this begs the question of whether or not we should or would feel compelled to act if truces/treaties were broken.

murral stark
11-23-2012, 09:25 PM
What countries have we been in for over 50 years? I can think of only Western Europe and S. Korea.

1. In Western Europe, the strategy won. In the early 80's there was a grave concern that Western Europe was indeed suddenly vulnerable. Thus began the build-up that brought the GLCM, the 600 ship navy, and major growth of both Army and Air Forces in Europe. If this build-up had not occurred, any war in Europe would have been over in roughly a week. This was because the US didn't have the air frames and ships to deliver a credible counter-force in less time. It was felt that the Soviets would need 7 days to move their forces into readiness while we could have a division or two .... and NO EQUIPMENT...across in the same time. We saw roughly the same thing in Gulf War I....weeks and weeks of transporting equipment. (In fact, a significant portion of the men and equipment needed for Gulf I was drawn from Europe.)

The forces are there now (much smaller forces) as a contribution to NATO and to have a place to rotate them in and out of the ME. Even that mission is declining. If I named the just the air bases that have closed in Europe in the past 20 years, you'd be amazed....RAF Fairford, RAF Upper Heyford, RAF Bentwaters, RAF Woodbury, RAF Bentwaters, Sembach AB, BitBurg AB, Rhein-Main AB, Hahn AB, Zweibrucken AB, Torrejon AB, one of the bases in Italy, Comiso AB, and Hellenikon AB. Every one of these (except Hellenikon) held a single wing (24 aircraft) and about 2000 people. European end strength used to be about 1,000,000. Now I'd guess it's more like 350-400,000.

2. In S. Korea there is a small force (about a division and a half) and two air wings. They serve as a trip wire that causes the N. Koreans to think twice about invading. If S. Korea were to be invaded, the US forces would contribute but end up falling back. They would serve their purpose of holding the North until we could me the rest of the force into place. It's basically the same strategy as before the Korean War except the US force is larger and remains on alert. Part of the reason that worked was that N Korea had a relatively primative land and air force. That's not so true today and folks really have their thinking caps on about this.

All of this begs the question of whether or not we should or would feel compelled to act if truces/treaties were broken.

Here's another one. Japan/okinawa. My point is why are we still there wasting money? whether it be western Europe, S Korea, Or Japan. If they ask for our assistance, we go help out, not fight their war. If they don't want us there, get the heck out of there. Back in the 80's when President Reagan was in office, when Lebanon didn't want us there. what did he do? He got us out of there instead of sending in more troops. smart move. That's what we need to do worldwide. Bring our troops home and protect our homeland and let everybody else defend theirs.

Gerry Clinchy
11-23-2012, 10:26 PM
Here's another one. Japan/okinawa. My point is why are we still there wasting money? whether it be western Europe, S Korea, Or Japan. If they ask for our assistance, we go help out, not fight their war. If they don't want us there, get the heck out of there. Back in the 80's when President Reagan was in office, when Lebanon didn't want us there. what did he do? He got us out of there instead of sending in more troops. smart move. That's what we need to do worldwide. Bring our troops home and protect our homeland and let everybody else defend theirs.

But I do think that Europe and S. Korea want us there.

With Japan, the peace treaty that ended WWII included limitations on an army for Japan, but it's probably time for that to be re-visited so that they can take care of themselves.

Also, remember the forces that could have helped in Benghazi were those stationed in Europe. Aid was only an hour or two away (airtime). If for no other reason than to protect US citizens or diplomatic missions abroad, there would be some need for forces stationed overseas.

With regard to "nation building" ... perhaps there needs to be a better definition. In Iraq removing Saddam left chaos in the govt, i.e. there was none left. There was a responsibility, I think, to restore civil order. Of course, we messed that up badly ... but when they no longer wanted our troop presence they were withdrawn. I doubt that Russia or China would have been so accommodating.

We also rebuilt Japan and Germany after the war, and left them to govern themselves. We saw that the Russians were less willing to do that for those countries they controlled after the WWII.

Evils certainly have been associated with our desire to keep oil flowing to the US. OTOH, what would be the state of our economy during that period had we not kept the flow of oil secure? Energy has been a critical component to economic growth. However, I also believe that the handwriting was on the wall back during the Carter administration. The DOE was set up under him. We should have aggressively been pursuing our energy independence ever since, and we didn't do so.

Now that we know we have energy supplies for 100 years, we need to use ALL of those sources to keep the economic engine running while we develop alternate energy sources for many uses to extend the "lifespan" of the fossil fuels. Have always felt that solar is best suited to housing needs. That, and geo-thermal, could take care of a lot of housing heating/cooling/lighting electrical needs. The benefit there would also be that each household would be more self-sufficient in the bargain. After the debacle of Sandy, self-sufficiency seems like a pretty good idea! The problem seems to be that the DOE should viably be supporting the kind of R&D that would encourage that kind of alternative energy development, but they have not done a great job of it.

I surely believe that there would be "fat" in our overseas presence, but there is surely a need to have forces overseas.

murral stark
11-23-2012, 10:34 PM
But I do think that Europe and S. Korea want us there.

With Japan, the peace treaty that ended WWII included limitations on an army for Japan, but it's probably time for that to be re-visited so that they can take care of themselves.

Also, remember the forces that could have helped in Benghazi were those stationed in Europe. Aid was only an hour or two away (airtime). If for no other reason than to protect US citizens or diplomatic missions abroad, there would be some need for forces stationed overseas.

With regard to "nation building" ... perhaps there needs to be a better definition. In Iraq removing Saddam left chaos in the govt, i.e. there was none left. There was a responsibility, I think, to restore civil order. Of course, we messed that up badly ... but when they no longer wanted our troop presence they were withdrawn. I doubt that Russia or China would have been so accommodating.

We also rebuilt Japan and Germany after the war, and left them to govern themselves. We saw that the Russians were less willing to do that for those countries they controlled after the WWII.

Evils certainly have been associated with our desire to keep oil flowing to the US. OTOH, what would be the state of our economy during that period had we not kept the flow of oil secure? Energy has been a critical component to economic growth. However, I also believe that the handwriting was on the wall back during the Carter administration. The DOE was set up under him. We should have aggressively been pursuing our energy independence ever since, and we didn't do so.

Now that we know we have energy supplies for 100 years, we need to use ALL of those sources to keep the economic engine running while we develop alternate energy sources for many uses to extend the "lifespan" of the fossil fuels. Have always felt that solar is best suited to housing needs. That, and geo-thermal, could take care of a lot of housing heating/cooling/lighting electrical needs. The benefit there would also be that each household would be more self-sufficient in the bargain. After the debacle of Sandy, self-sufficiency seems like a pretty good idea! The problem seems to be that the DOE should viably be supporting the kind of R&D that would encourage that kind of alternative energy development, but they have not done a great job of it.

I surely believe that there would be "fat" in our overseas presence, but there is surely a need to have forces overseas.

If we didn't have embassies or consulates in those countries, would be a non-issue. We still do not need bases in western europe wasting money. If a conflict arises and they ask for our help, we send in help not the personnel that we have stationed over there. Why do we need to be the protector of the world? Take care of our own people and don't worry about everybody else.

Eric Johnson
11-23-2012, 11:52 PM
If a conflict arises and they ask for our help, we send in help not the personnel that we have stationed over there. Why do we need to be the protector of the world? Take care of our own people and don't worry about everybody else.

Didn't you even read what I wrote? If the European continent breaks out in war, we couldn't get there in time to do anything. It's a pipedream to think the way you do.

We are in those locations as a forward defense against having to fight on our shores. If we withdraw from Europe (for instance), the only war-fighting capability we will have is our inventory of nuclear devices. Is that what you propose?

HPL
11-24-2012, 01:09 AM
It seems to me from what I remember from my history classes, plus what I have since read and heard in the news, along with what I think I understand about how the world works, that a great deal of nation building has been taken on in an attempt to create a more stable world. Stability produces conditions that are conducive to general prosperity, which benefits not only the aristocracy, but also the hoi paloi. Countries with systems similar to ours are perceived to be more likely to be useful trading partners, able to produce items that we want and also able to be consumers of our exports.

Our maintenance of bases and troops overseas, although perhaps related to the "nation building" question is actually at least to some degree a different issue. There are certainly multiple reasons for this practice. Some of it is to protect our economic interests, some to protect out allies, and some to simply keep perceived enemies at bay.

Gerry Clinchy
11-24-2012, 01:18 AM
It seems to me from what I remember from my history classes, plus what I have since read and heard in the news, along with what I think I understand about how the world works, that a great deal of nation building has been taken on in an attempt to create a more stable world. Stability produces conditions that are conducive to general prosperity, which benefits not only the aristocracy, but also the hoi paloi. Countries with systems similar to ours are perceived to be more likely to be useful trading partners, able to produce items that we want and also able to be consumers of our exports.

Our maintenance of bases and troops overseas, although perhaps related to the "nation building" question is actually at least to some degree a different issue. There are certainly multiple reasons for this practice. Some of it is to protect our economic interests, some to protect out allies, and some to simply keep perceived enemies at bay.

Makes sense to me.

I think the "dispute" is how much we "need" to spend on maintaining stability. Seems that there is some need for the US to act as such a stabilizer, since the UN is pretty useless at much of anything.

Julie R.
11-24-2012, 04:28 AM
If we didn't have embassies or consulates in those countries, would be a non-issue. We still do not need bases in western europe wasting money. If a conflict arises and they ask for our help, we send in help not the personnel that we have stationed over there. Why do we need to be the protector of the world? Take care of our own people and don't worry about everybody else.

Embassies and consulates are not military installations; they're meant to foster diplomacy in other nations. And a large part of what they do is represent Americans overseas, as well as citizens of the host nation that want to travel (or live in) the U.S.

And I too don't think nation building is the right term. So my answer to Ken is, if we want to remain a super power, we simply cannot ignore the rest of the world. We need to speak softly and carry a big arse stick (or nuke, or fleet of warships, troops ready to be deployed, etc.) The majority of the nations don't respect anything else. There was a time when awarding govt. military contracts stimulated our economy and got us out of war. How did it become fostering the military-industrial complex? Sounds like the preamble to a U.N. diatribe by N. Korea or Angola.

zeus3925
11-24-2012, 07:42 AM
RE: military Industrial Complex: Read Eisenhower's farewell speech. In conversation with members of the Minnesota Air National guard, Lockheed keeps churning out C-130's that the Air Force doesn't want or need. And when they get the planes, they frequently have to be torn down and rebuilt because of poor workmanship. Politicians love defense plants and military bases in their districts because the military industrial complex provides tons of jobs for their constituents.

road kill
11-24-2012, 08:15 AM
RE: military Industrial Complex: Read Eisenhower's farewell speech. In conversation with members of the Minnesota Air National guard, Lockheed keeps churning out C-130's that the Air Force doesn't want or need. And when they get the planes, they frequently have to be torn down and rebuilt because of poor workmanship. Politicians love defense plants and military bases in their districts because the military industrial complex provides tons of jobs for their constituents.
Careful Sarge........most of that labor belongs to an "International!!"

Votes and $$$$$$!!!!!!!!:D

Ken Bora
11-24-2012, 08:20 AM
Our maintenance of bases and troops overseas, although perhaps related to the "nation building" question is actually at least to some degree a different issue. There are certainly multiple reasons for this practice. Some of it is to protect our economic interests, some to protect out allies, and some to simply keep perceived enemies at bay.

correct! but a good branch off for talking about.

Ken Bora
11-24-2012, 08:26 AM
Boy I hate it when my memory slips. I forgot about US Foods role in central America and Cuba. Big business and big money played a huge role in establlishing US friendly dictators in that region.

and built roads and rail and shipping ports for sugar and was it Dole? the pineapple canner as well. but wasn't that a lot of private industry dollars combining with U.S. military "protection"? but it that / those cases were we nation building? Teaching how to form a government. Or simply exploiting? and the infrastructure we added did help build the nations in question but were made for our own selfish reasons????

Golddogs
11-24-2012, 10:51 AM
and built roads and rail and shipping ports for sugar and was it Dole? the pineapple canner as well. but wasn't that a lot of private industry dollars combining with U.S. military "protection"? but it that / those cases were we nation building? Teaching how to form a government. Or simply exploiting? and the infrastructure we added did help build the nations in question but were made for our own selfish reasons????

Good questions Ken.

When American Fruit and others beagn in Central America, I don't think anything they did was for any other reason than to get there product grown and to market as quickly and cheaply as posible. The SOP of the time was payoff's to whoever was in power, and over time, many of those companies, with US backing, helped to establish business friendly " leaders" and keep them in power. ( Batista as an example ) So in the beginning, I feel it was all about the profit and building the companies.

As we, the world, became more inter- connected, and it became frowned upon to support despotic leaders, then I believe we began "Nation Building" in earnest. ( Peron and Penochete come to mind, but they were more early 60's ) and we began to accept the " lesser of two evils " approach to leaders we supported. And I think that pattern continues today. While we thump our chests and demand democracy from so many other countries, it is pretty clear that we are just as happy to work with a head of state who is pro US ( the Saudis come to mind )

Bottom line: it was and is about the $$$....., and began in earnest, by the US, after the Spanish American War, when all of the then super powers were in decline world wide.

PS:
As a nation builder we stink and have done a piss poor job overall. England on the other hand had great success, but it was done by occupying, dismantiling the existing rule structure and spending years in the countries as both a military and or business presence. ( East India Company comes to mind ) Countries like Jamaica, India, Caymen Island are all built on the English model and run pretty well.

road kill
11-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Good questions Ken.

When American Fruit and others beagn in Central America, I don't think anything they did was for any other reason than to get there product grown and to market as quickly and cheaply as posible. The SOP of the time was payoff's to whoever was in power, and over time, many of those companies, with US backing, helped to establish business friendly " leaders" and keep them in power. ( Batista as an example ) So in the beginning, I feel it was all about the profit and building the companies.

As we, the world, became more inter- connected, and it became frowned upon to support despotic leaders, then I believe we began "Nation Building" in earnest. ( Peron and Penochete come to mind, but they were more early 60's ) and we began to accept the " lesser of two evils " approach to leaders we supported. And I think that pattern continues today. While we thump our chests and demand democracy from so many other countries, it is pretty clear that we are just as happy to work with a head of state who is pro US ( the Saudis come to mind )

Bottom line: it was and is about the $$$....., and began in earnest, by the US, after the Spanish American War, when all of the then super powers were in decline world wide.

PS:
As a nation builder we stink and have done a piss poor job overall. England on the other hand had great success, but it was done by occupying, dismantiling the existing rule structure and spending years in the countries as both a military and or business presence. ( East India Company comes to mind ) Countries like Jamaica, India, Caymen Island are all built on the English model and run pretty well.
I agree, look what we have done to America!!!!

HPL
11-24-2012, 11:06 AM
Don't forget the term "Banana Republic" (not the clothing maker) and the role United Fruit had in forming the US' "colonial" (for lack of a better term) efforts. Nation building, like general exploration, is clearly often about expanding markets (which is NOT a bad thing). As Ken mentioned, in the past, at least, much of the infrastructure has been financed by the business interests that have operations in these countries. We also know that there have been times when these same financial interests have involved a bit of intrigue and have gotten the US involved in military actions.

2tall
11-24-2012, 11:16 AM
and built roads and rail and shipping ports for sugar and was it Dole? the pineapple canner as well. but wasn't that a lot of private industry dollars combining with U.S. military "protection"? but it that / those cases were we nation building? Teaching how to form a government. Or simply exploiting? and the infrastructure we added did help build the nations in question but were made for our own selfish reasons????


Good questions Ken.

When American Fruit and others beagn in Central America, I don't think anything they did was for any other reason than to get there product grown and to market as quickly and cheaply as posible. The SOP of the time was payoff's to whoever was in power, and over time, many of those companies, with US backing, helped to establish business friendly " leaders" and keep them in power. ( Batista as an example ) So in the beginning, I feel it was all about the profit and building the companies.

As we, the world, became more inter- connected, and it became frowned upon to support despotic leaders, then I believe we began "Nation Building" in earnest. ( Peron and Penochete come to mind, but they were more early 60's ) and we began to accept the " lesser of two evils " approach to leaders we supported. And I think that pattern continues today. While we thump our chests and demand democracy from so many other countries, it is pretty clear that we are just as happy to work with a head of state who is pro US ( the Saudis come to mind )

Bottom line: it was and is about the $$$....., and began in earnest, by the US, after the Spanish American War, when all of the then super powers were in decline world wide.

PS:
As a nation builder we stink and have done a piss poor job overall. England on the other hand had great success, but it was done by occupying, dismantiling the existing rule structure and spending years in the countries as both a military and or business presence. ( East India Company comes to mind ) Countries like Jamaica, India, Caymen Island are all built on the English model and run pretty well.

Lets not forget or reinterpret what United Fruit meant to Latin America. Not only did their operations rape the jungles of our southern neighbor, they also shut down all of the banana exports of the Caribbean countries of Grenada, St. Lucia and several others that had depended on the commerce for survival. (not to mention the fruit is way better:() This was a blatant example of "Nation Building" being the pretty label given to the act of using our military and political influence to further the fortunes of corporations bent on exploitation.
The following by Pablo Neruda: (I can not find the name of this translator.)

"When the trumpet sounded
everything was prepared on earth,
and Jehovah gave the world
to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other corporations.
The United Fruit Company
reserved for itself the most juicy
piece, the central coast of my world,
the delicate waist of America.

It rebaptized these countries
Banana Republics,
and over the sleeping dead,
over the unquiet heroes
who won greatness,
liberty, and banners,
it established an opera buffa:
it abolished free will,
gave out imperial crowns,
encouraged envy, attracted
the dictatorship of flies:
Trujillo flies, Tachos flies
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, flies sticky with
submissive blood and marmalade,
drunken flies that buzz over
the tombs of the people,
circus flies, wise flies
expert at tyranny.

With the bloodthirsty flies
came the Fruit Company,
amassed coffee and fruit
in ships which put to sea like
overloaded trays with the treasures
from our sunken lands.

Meanwhile the Indians fall
into the sugared depths of the
harbors and are buried in the
morning mists;
a corpse rolls, a thing without
name, a discarded number,
a bunch of rotten fruit
thrown on the garbage heap

smillerdvm
11-24-2012, 11:20 AM
I agree, look what we have done to America!!!!

One of your more astute posts

Im old enough to remember when that post would have been pure comedy. Sadly there is a whole lot of truth to it today. Our nation building efforts definitely need to be focused right here at home until we can get our own house in order we need to stay out of other peoples business

Golddogs
11-24-2012, 04:18 PM
they also shut down all of the banana exports of the Caribbean countries of Grenada, St. Lucia and several others that had depended on the commerce for survival. (not to mention the fruit is way better:()

Totally agree. We have a good friend in Jamaica, Donald Thorpe, who started out in Bananas on his family farm, ( 40 acres ) and made enough to start his own Tour service. His first car was an old Renault and now has 2 Toyota mini vans and 3 Coaster busses.


Most of the export agriculture on that island was impacted by big business in the Latin American countries and was a major cause of many leaving to Canada and the UK for jobs. About the only real ag exports left are Rum and Red Stripe, Blue Mountain coffee and some sugar.

( ironically Fruit of the Loom has a very nice factory just outside of Mo Bay supplying underwear instead of Bananas )

2tall
11-24-2012, 05:44 PM
Totally agree. We have a good friend in Jamaica, Donald Thorpe, who started out in Bananas on his family farm, ( 40 acres ) and made enough to start his own Tour service. His first car was an old Renault and now has 2 Toyota mini vans and 3 Coaster busses.


Most of the export agriculture on that island was impacted by big business in the Latin American countries and was a major cause of many leaving to Canada and the UK for jobs. About the only real ag exports left are Rum and Red Stripe, Blue Mountain coffee and some sugar.

( ironically Fruit of the Loom has a very nice factory just outside of Mo Bay supplying underwear instead of Bananas )

Oh no Golddogs, you just had to leave that out there didn't you? Fruit of the loom is making "Banana Slings" now????? (thongs for guys):shock::shock::shock: Could not help myself. But back to topic, sort of. In 1992 we took a great tour of Grenada(a local guide) that included the banana farms and the spice warehouses. We were given a "hand" of bananas at each place so we could compare. I swear it was like a vineyard tour. Each farmer's product had its own taste, texture and level of sweetness. It was the best tasting fruit I have ever had. When I asked the driver why we could not buy this guys produce back in the states, he gave me the long sad tale about UFCO and how the windward islands were kept out of the US markets. Sad for them, sad for us.

road kill
11-24-2012, 07:01 PM
One of your more astute posts

Im old enough to remember when that post would have been pure comedy. Sadly there is a whole lot of truth to it today. Our nation building efforts definitely need to be focused right here at home until we can get our own house in order we need to stay out of other peoples business
All of my posts are "astute."
If you could transcend your bias you would know that.:D

Pete
11-24-2012, 08:59 PM
We nation build so we can justify occupation.
The powers that be who ever they might be desire control and power , may be a new world where we have a global economy

Pete

murral stark
11-24-2012, 10:55 PM
This pretty much sums it up:
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” Jimi Hendrix