- Capitalism and Alternatives -

The World Today, and the USA owns it

Posted by: worldlyman on December 15, 1999 at 00:10:21:

It seems that the WTO and its sister organizations, the IMF and World
Bank, have been well on course to make the world a safe place for those who own it while destroying it in the process.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, there is no other super power to
keep US control on the world in check. The US is literally quite free to drop bombs, invade other countries and still engage in CIA subversion whenever it damn well pleases without having to worry about strong military retaliation from another nation.

Long before there was ever a Soviet Union, the US has waged violence
around the world, from Cuba to the Philippines, from Nicaragua to
Mexican territory, from Hawaii to Haiti..........on behalf of entrenched elite interests and territorial expansion (or "Manifest Destiny" i.e. "God Told Us to Conquer the World" sort of thing)

Post WW II, though the Soviet Union was a colossal wreck (13 million
people and 7 million soldiers dead, thousands of factories demolished, etc.), the US masters claimed that a large Pentagon establishment was always needed to protect us from "Soviet expansionism" (though the Soviet military NEVER possessed first-rate power projection forces like the USA).

Look at the old Soviet record of worldwide violence. It PALES in
comparison to the US catalog in both number AND scope. Analyze what
the US planners (State Dept.) wanted in 1948 in the Policy Planning
Study #23.............basic US domination of the world's resources (where a "disparity" had to "be maintained"). This document was top secret for 20 years and speaks volumes of the US establishment mindset that go beyond the "freedom and democracy" rhetoric.

We analyze that the Pentagon establishment was and is a funnel in
which to make the rich even richer through public welfare. For those
who decry Leftists as "anti-patriotic", then how do we (or an economic
"libertarian") justify the Pentagon procurement officers paying $7,477
for ONE motor assembly pin worth TWO CENTS, a fax machine for
$600,000 apiece, a fifty cent light bulb for $50 and $1,200 for a pair of pliers worth $12? (Keep in mind that Pentagon officers move on to nice corporate careers after a fine tenure in government).

How do we justify a US military force structure designed to fight two
major world wars at once despite the fact there is no more "hostile" Soviet Union?

How do we justify spending a Pentagon budget of $260 billion per year
(a Nixon level Cold War average) despite the absence of an "expansionist" Soviet Union?

The Pentagon system is a welfare one designed to allow corporate
elites to live off of the public trough. These masters acknowledged in 1948 that entrenched industries such as Boeing could not survive a "free market" without taxpayer subsidy.

How's that for those that think the government is not obliged to provide health care for ALL its citizens? And it is interesting to hear their thoughts about why the US has a history of being hell-bent to invade or destabilize poor countries that did or do provide health care to ALL their citizens.

In US planning doctrines, beneath the usual political public rhetoric of "human rights, freedom and democracy around the world", the purpose is to make sure the Third World is compliant and safe for US business interests.

Nations that did or do not follow the program such as Castro Cuba,
Arbenz's Guatemala (early '50s), Allende's Chile, or the Sandinista
Nicaragua are sanctioned or were brought down by the United States,
that espouser of "sovereign free will" via the CIA or CIA-funded terrorist armies.

(And it's interesting what's going on with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, a
nation of large oil transactions. It seems his policies are swinging to the left. We might wonder how if this keeps up how the US leaders will cry "Soviet manipulation" when and if the US has to use media vilification or the US Marines or the CIA.)

We always hear our leaders speak of "our interests" or "US interests" around the world. Can YOU define what they are?

Analyze how Castro's imperfect Cuba is still far more humanizing than
the previous capitalist Batista era of bloodshed and the US puppet capitalist states of today like Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador........yet all the US policy makers cry tears over "human rights" in Cuba but not in Colombia.

In US-supported Colombia, there are death squads and US-supplied
helicopter gunships terrorizing and slaughtering peasants in the countryside. (Colombia is not something we hear about in the news a lot except when "Marxist rebels" wipe out government outposts or when a "drug lord" is captured.)

That type of violence does not go on in socialist Cuba yet we know
which country is most demonized by US opinion makers.

Cubans may not always like what goes on with Castro, but they are
fed, educated and provided with health care. In Colombia, El Salvador
and such places of capitalist heaven, there is mass poverty and hunger
and thousands of children begging on the streets suffering from
malnutrition and dysentry. That is what drove and drives people in those places against US-backed authority.

Not "drug warlords" and not "Soviet puppet strings."

Newsweek, Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright, TIME, CNN and the rest surely
will not tell you that the Colombian military IS tied with the drug lords. It's not a surprise that the docile US population buys into the hype that the US supports Colombia to "fight drugs" (in lieu of the Soviet hobgoblin pretext which is no longer serviceable).

The World Today. And the USA owns it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup