Big difference

Fundamental differences between Russian and American invaders


Big difference
by Ben Madadi

Recent developments in Georgia have confirmed many fears, including that of mine, that Russia's imperialistic intentions are very serious and the democratic world needs no complacency toward such brutal acts against democratic movements of other nations, the one of Georgia in this particular case. When I wrote an article (Tanks but no thanks) a few days ago about the events in progress I was thinking about a few issues that I was absolutely sure would come up in the comments I would receive. The questioning is absolutely legitimate and worth serious consideration and debate.

We know that America did invade Iraq. We know what happened in Iraq after the invasion. So many innocent Iraqi lives were lost, children, women, and elderly, who as the consequence of the chaos that ensued were murdered, harassed, or their belongings and livelihood plundered! Why all this happened? It is obvious. If there was no American invasion to remove Saddam Hussein there could have never been these horrible consequences and many innocent Iraqi people would have been spared the needless suffering. This is an undeniable fact.

I have acknowledged even before that I supported America in its decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. I was, like many others, also disappointed at how the Bush administration handled the post-invasion conditions in Iraq, how they idiotically and arrogantly disbanded the Iraqi army and neglected the civilian population and their lives for a very long time without any powerful Iraqi central authority. It is quite simple,  America's adversaries are free to accuse America of very many things, including that of invading a sovereign nation, Iraq, and (illegitimately) removing its (illegitimate) government, and later mishandling the post-invasion situation; the chaos that followed.

So, one simple question has come up now: If America invaded Iraq and removed the Iraqi government, why shouldn't we accept another superpower (semi-superpower actually) doing pretty much the same thing in its own backyard? Why should we hypocritically bash Russia for something that so far seems far smaller in all spheres of appreciation? These are indeed very legitimate and normal issues and any person can make comparisons and draw conclusions, one way or the other. The facts on the ground cannot be denied, and the past can work both ways, for the so-called US empire, or the Russian one!

But there are some differences that are so fundamental, but at the same ideologically apart, that only the judging individual (in this case the reader) can freely draw his or her own, and very much possibly different, conclusions. What is so different between what happened to Iraq, and what is happening to Georgia that makes someone like me support America but not support another bully, Russia? The answer is this, America is a genuine democracy, while Russia is far from any sort of true democracy. Is any genuine democracy free to invade other countries? No, absolutely not. But here we are talking about individual cases.

Philosophically and legally speaking, America had no right to enter Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. However America was, and is, a democracy, which decided, arbitrarily, to remove an illegitimate and tyrannical regime, while Russia, is not a democracy, which is trying to do something a bit less dramatic (than what America did to Iraq) to a democratic (or maybe just an aspiring democracy) country; Georgia. Who should I stand by? A tyranny, or a democracy? I choose to stand by a democracy, the world's most powerful and one of the most liberal ones, and I also stand by democracy even when it makes mistakes, because this is how human beings (and their chosen systems), fallible human beings, can live with their own not-always-perfect judgements. But democratic systems have the good side that they are open to change and progress, and they too often accept their mistakes and make efforts to make mends.

There are also other issues that may not be fundamental but are strictly related to the past and how each parties' past can suggest about their present actions and claims. Russia is talking about protecting minority rights, while we know about Russian 'concern' about minority rights, when it was the case in Chechnya, or when it was about protecting Slobodan Milosevic and his criminal actions against non-Serbs. While it was mostly America who protected both Muslims and Catholic Christians of Bosnia, and it is America who now is trying to protect the Muslims of Darfur while Russia, China and many other nations, including Muslim ones, are either silent or openly supportive of the genocide that is taking place in western Sudan.

While America has condemned and jailed its own soldiers for misconduct in Iraq or other places, and has also accepted responsibility for misdeeds in Vietnam, Iran, or other places, countries like Russia are not used to taking responsibility for their past mistakes. Has any Russian soldier ever faced any criminal charges for the crimes committed against Russia's own Muslim population in Chechnya? No. That's why some people like me, find it extremely hard to believe Russian (or Chinese or Iranian) versions of events even when they may be true or half true.


Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi
Farhad Kashani

Siamak, I know what you

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, I know what you mean, but I think, and I could be wrong, by modern war you mean wars between a country (U.S) and groups that hide between the general population and have no uniform or army (Taliban,  Al qaeda)…unfortunately, those wars do cause civilian causalities, I think the U.S needs to have a different strategy to manage those wars. They have done badly in the wars to win the hearts and minds of people. Even they admit it. I supported the Afghan war, but not the Iraq war.



I'm glad we agree. The

by Siamak V (not verified) on

I'm glad we agree. The thing is, there is no precedent for a properly-managed war. Every modern war includes civilian casualties. That is why I was against both invasions.

Farhad Kashani

I agree with you. She

by Farhad Kashani on

I agree with you. She doesn’t. That’s what I meant by them mismanaging the war.



My friend, please consider

by Siamak V (not verified) on

My friend, please consider whether an Afghani bride taking her last breaths at a wedding that is being attacked by US warplanes can take heart in knowing that her death has UN approval.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak, I opposed the Iraq

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, I opposed the Iraq war, not the Afghanistan war (although the high Iraqi civilian causality due to inner fight between different Islamic groups to get to power is not U.S’ fault, clearly); the latter had clear U.N approval, World public opinion approval, Afghani approval, ,..but I definitely disagree with the way U.S and its allies managed both wars. U.S should rely on intelligence and winning the hearts and minds more than firepower in both countries. They’re mismanaged war due to Bush’s incompetence. Wish you the best also.


Are the thousands of Iraqi

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Are the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died from real, non-metaphorical American bombs and bullets, and the 78 Afghani civilians who died today from the same - all in America's "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" - collateral damage in a just cause? If your answer is yes, then I will respectfully bow out of this conversation and wish you the best in life.

Farhad Kashani

Simak, it is vague if you

by Farhad Kashani on

Simak, it is vague if you compare it to the conventional definitions we have. This is non traditional. let me give you an example. I, in my own little corner and my own little world and to the best of my ability have declared war on Islamic fundamentalism. Now, I did not declare war on any country or territory. I believe that global movement is a threat to civilization as we know it. I will do whatever I can (And I’m doing a lot) to fight his ideology. If I get organized (Which I am) and form a movement and start something, and whoever subscribes to my belief and we become regional and global, then we have declared war on Islamic fundamentalism. Which means we’re gonna go after anything that represents Islamic Fundamentalism, whether it is a government that promotes for it (like Iran), or an individual (Of course the way we would engage a person is different than a government, especially if it was un-elected). Our mission is to defeat it, we know since it’s an ideologically it can never go away, but we can marginalize it, like it happened with the Nazi movement. But you get my point. I think we shouldn’t be looking it at this traditionally. I guess you have a good point about looking at this metaphorically. Like you said, Communism, itself as an ideology, didn’t have tanks and bullets.

 Chavez did close down TV station. His claim was that they acted “irresponsibly” for criticizing his “people revolution”. Very dictatorial. I don’t think Bush is anti Venezuelan. Chavez has made way too many anti American comments. He hasn’t got to the point that Khomeini did with having a hate-obsession with the U.S, but he got close. He has toned it down lately since he knows Bush is leaving


Farhad - I don't mean any

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - I don't mean any disrespect, but "global communist movement" is still just as vague. You make the statement that "Communist forces declared war on the U.S." and then you seem to say that 'communist forces' can mean whatever you want it to mean and that 'war' can mean whatever you want it to mean. When you say that "We can't simplify it by trying to figure out what the term 'war' meant," I think it would be more accurate to say "I can't simplify it..." For myself, I can define what war is. But I'm not the one who made the original statement. Again, I am asking for one quote, one statement of fact to back up your statement. If by the term "war", you meant something metaphorical, it would have been good if you had said that at the outset, because I'm not concerned with metaphorical bullets and bombs, but with real ones.

Chavez has not closed down the opposition media. They are more vocal in Venezuela than the opposition media is here in the U.S. Also, I think Chavez is no more anti-American (again, an undefined, free-to-mean-anything term) than Bush is anti-Venezuelan.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak, the global

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, the global communist movement is the one who declared war on capitalism. We really can’t simplify it to see whether there is one leader, or one party, or one country who declared that war. We also can’t simplify it by trying to figure out what that term “war” meant. Obviously, this is not your traditional definition of war or declaring war. Let me give you an example: Many Islamic movements have declared war on modernism, U.S, their own governments, regional power, world order,,things like that. Some of them declared war on all of them, some of them declared war on some of them, some of them didn’t use the term “war”, we have to have hindsight. Bush too. He declared war on Islamic fundamentalism. Now, there is no one leader of that movement, or central area, ..but the movement is out there. And of course we’re not talking about Bush or Islamists’ or Communists’ true intentions here. So this is not your typical war, but it is a war, nonetheless. We can be realistic about it, or idealistic. I think we should be realistic. You yourself correctly said this is not a physical being, rather, a war of ideas.


Chavez: Chavez has won elections through democratic processes, gotta give him that, although lets not forget about the coup he attempted when he was the general. That being said, he is clearly on the road to ruin Venezuelan democracy. he has closed down opposition TV station (Which only few remaining dictators in the world do that nowadays), barred candidates from running elections (Also the same), and wants to appoint himself as lifetime “president” i.e king. Most Venezuelans do not agree with those actions, that’s why they voted against his move to become the “King”. We’re not even gonna touch on the other terrible policies he had. As far as U.S intervention, from what can you can tell about Chavez, if he had those proofs that U.S directly, and the keyword here is directly, planned the coup and executed it, he would’ve raised hell about it. People in different planets would’ve heard about this by now from Chavez. But I do agree that the U.S probably knew about it through some Venezuelans opposition who probably were seeking U.S help who planned the coup and executed it. And as I said, U.S would’ve been happy about it. after all, Chavez has left no room for anyone to doubt that he is as staunch as anti American as it can get right next to Khamenei or anti Bush at least.



Farhad - What I am trying to

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - What I am trying to do is ask you to explain your statement "Political communist forces declared war on the U.S." Who declared war? Did Allende? Did Mossadegh? Your arguments rely on terms like "the communists" and "communist forces" and do not provide any specifics. Who came on television and told their people that Bush or any U.S. President had 48 hours to leave? Did Lumumba? Did Ortega? Please state one actual, factual, non-metaphorical, non-abstract declaration of war.

Chavez: There are some anti-Chavez Venezuelans. They are the upper class. Clearly, the majority are pro-Chavez since they brought him back. And the U.S. was most definitely behind it. I can provide articles about it if you want.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak, I understand how

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, I understand how the declaration of war works, just not sure if you mean whether there is a connection between what U.S was doing and between situation in those countries. I’m not sure I’m understanding your point, but if I am, I have to say that just like those countries leader’s didn’t declare war on the U.S, the U.S didn’t declare war on them either. U.S didn’t declare war on Chile. What I’m saying it’s never the people who declare war in undemocratic forms of government, but rather the regime. But again, maybe you can clear what your point is. Let me just say this, the U.S was assisting anti Communist movements in fight against communism only, whether those movements committed crime against humanity is not U.S’ fault, its theirs, and the logic is that U.S assisted many anti communist movements in many countries that didn’t violate human rights. Furthermore, let not forget the communist waged war against the system of government and lifestyle which U.S represented. Since it was a global war, the communists went after governments everywhere to overthrow them and replace them with a communist system in order to gradually bring U.S to its knees. U.S had farsight, and if it wouldn’t moved and strike back before they did, U.S would’ve fell. And finally, the most important point is that fighting communism was not just U.S’ goal, people all around the world from all different backgrounds fought it. Most of them didn’t abuse human rights during that struggle, but some did.


Chavez: unfortunately that wasn’t the case. Anti Chavez Venezuelans wanted to overthrow Chavez, not the U.S. U.S could’ve been happy about him gone, that doesn’t mean U.S directly did it. Remember, Chavez, just like most staunch anti U.S leftists, make up lot of things to make America look bad. For example, once he talked about an alleged “secret” operation to overthrow him by the U.S, and it turned out he made up the whole thing and the name he put on the operation was a Spanish military maneuver operation name.


Farhad - It's not that

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - It's not that difficult to know if a national leader has declared war on another country. Declarations of war are not abstract concepts, so I don't understand what the gray area is for you. A declaration of war is something akin to what the U.S. put forth towards Afghanistan and Iraq. If you have evidence of the leaders that I mentioned doing that, please provide it.

I don't think the example of Chavez strengthens your argument, because the American response to his 'war of words' was to attempt to overthrow him in an illegal coup. Again, it was an imperialistic response towards a democratically-elected leader. Fortunately, the poor people of Venezuela brought Chavez back.

Farhad Kashani

Zion, thanks. Keep up the

by Farhad Kashani on

Zion, thanks. Keep up the good work.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak, I don’t think

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, I don’t think they declared war on the U.S. I think their leaders did, some of them after they got elected. Like Chavez, he was elected by the people to improve their economic conditions, mostly, but he joined the anti U.S coalition and is waging an aggressive war of words with the U.S and is trying to curb U.S strong ties with some other Latin American countries. Remember, at that time, most countries in the world belong to one of the two blocks. And I have to say democratic concepts such as free elections and freedom of speech are universal ideas. The world community, not just the U.S, but the U.N, NGOs, governments, people, media, all ..are engaged in promoting those ideas and I don’t think its logical to isolate yourself not accepting these ideas by saying I don’t want anyone to impose his lifestyle on me. I don’t think the world accepts that anymore. The world is shrinking.



by Zion on

Another very good article. Agreed.
Farhad, good comments.


Farhad - I can only re-state

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - I can only re-state my point that the people of Chile, in exercising their right to vote, were not declaring war on the U.S. Same for the people of Guatemala and Iran and the Congo and Brazil. If the U.S. believes in democracy for the rest of the world, then it cannot insist on only its kind of democracy (i.e. American client state). Subverting democracy is not just 'lesser of two evils'. It is immoral and imperialistic. None of those elected leaders declared war on the U.S. The problem is that historically the U.S. has interpreted any dispute to its hegemony as an existential threat. The U.S. can survive without being an empire, it just takes the will.

Shazdeh - I appreciate your support but I do think it's important to engage in discussion with people with whom one disagrees.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak V, obviously by

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak V, obviously by saying Communism I meant the political communism forces, mainly the USSR. We’re talking in political terms here, not literal.

And as far as the War on Terror phrase, I agree that it is a cheesy phrase and opens door to misinterpretation and ridicule. I believe the correct phrase should be War on Islamic Fundamentalism, but because Islamic fundamentalist forces use any excuse to say U.S is waging war on Islam, they changed it to war on terror. And that war is not fought by the U.S only, although U.S is their main target, its fought globally.


I have to insist on my belief regarding self responsibility. Historically, U.S has helped removed dictators more than any nation in the history. One of them was Hitler. But that help couldn’t worked without the will of the ones who wanted to remove Hitler, namely the German people, or at least part of them, majority of them.



Siamak - don't waste your

by Shazdeh (not verified) on

Siamak - don't waste your time. People of this ill are programmed to bounce off any logical or historically correct argument just to spew few rants against their usual suspects.


Farhad - As long as you

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - As long as you contend that an "-ism" can declare war on a country, I don't think we are discussing this issue on the same terms. "Communism" cannot declare war on a country because communism is not a being or physical entity. (By the way, it is the same reason why "War on Terrorism" does not make sense and hides the fact that human beings, very often civilians, are the casualties of that war.) In electing Salvador Allende, the people of Chile were not declaring war on the U.S. It is true that the U.S. perceived it that way, resulting in Nixon's demand to "make their economy scream," but in fact they were behaving democratically, which is one ideal that the U.S. can realistically support in other countries but often chooses not to.

As long as anti-communism (or anti-terrorism) serves as a big enough umbrella to shield one's conscience from the tears of Salvadorean, Chilean, Vietnamese, and Iraqi mothers, then I don't think the discussion is being conducted, with all due respect, on human and humane terms. I don't know how to express it without saying that that is a worldview that works in superhero comicbooks and not much anywhere else.


Dear Ben

by IRANdokht on

Please read:

Birth Pangs of a New World Disorder

There, you will find answers to most of the points you made.

I am not an expert in discussing politics, but I can tell if an argument is logical/reasonable or not.



Farhad Kashani

Simak, no I’m not, those

by Farhad Kashani on

Simak, no I’m not, those innocent people who died, lost their lives by the hands of the dictators ruling those countries, what difference does it make which countries they had ties with? During the Rwandan genocide, the attackers used knives and axes to massacre 800,000 people in record time. Did they need high tech weapons or “U.S support”? No, that example is to show U.S support for a government does not mean it automatically leads to massacre of people. U.S supports many countries, for example, Denmark and Japan. It provides them with all kinds of high tech military gear and intelligence and it constantly trains troops, but those countries don’t abuse human rights. Because as a nation, they have matured.


Chile example: the ideal situation for an American is to see that its government cut ties with all human rights abusers. But that’s exactly that, ideal, not realistic, especially during the time you mentioned. Communism declared a global war against capitalism and the “imperialist U.S”, not the other way around. Communism spread everywhere, U.S had to defend itself and its allies, and when the cold war was over, with the defeat of communism, hundreds of millions of people, not only got their freedom back, but their prosperity and dignity and they are thankful for U.S contribution in defeating communism. U.S defeated governments that not only were its communist enemies, but brutal human rights abusers like East Germany, Russia, Hungary and others. Many countries fought communism without having to abuse the rights of their people, examples again, Denmark and Japan and tens of others and they formed alliances with the U.S to fight communism. Pinochet did form alliance with the U.S and did abuse human rights in Chile, but why couldn’t he be like Japan or Denmark or others? That’s the ultimate question. Savak and the other one you mentioned, was Iran’s intelligence agency, responsible mainly to keep the Shah in power. If you take a realistic look at the situation in Iran, you can remember that the same Shah and the same army, did not fight the people in 1979. They lost to people who were not trained by anybody, simple militias. So what does that tell you? It says U.S training does not immediately lead to human rights atrocities, the only thing that will do that was the will of the Shah to remain as the “Shah”. And he would remove anyone who stood in his way. At some point (in 1979) he couldn’t/didn’t want to.


Farhad Kashani

Zeppelin, unless there is a

by Farhad Kashani on

Zeppelin, unless there is a direct foreign occupation which by force changes the government, everything else is the responsibility of that country. It there is a king that rules indefinitely, a brutal right wing or left wing dictator, it is the responsibility of the people, collectively speaking, to deal with it, no matter how strong ties the government has with others.


Zepellin, invading other countries? I didn’t know Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras and Haiti were U.S states. Furthermore, how absurd is this argument that U.S intervened to spread Christianity! Tell me “genius”, which religion did the people of those countries you mentioned belong to before U.S intervention?


Finally, and the most important point, the whole argument you made was about a comparison between Russia and the U.S. I don’t agree with many U.S foreign policy aspects, including the Iraq war, however, you are obviously trying to make a point that Russian brutal direct occupation of there countries and the wars it waged on other nations, including your own country Iran, is not worse than what U.S did. I gave you the list of the countries that U.S sacrifice and support helped in many case strengthen democracy and it many case establish democracy (Japan and Germany). is the list again:

 Japan Germany England France Finland Belgium Holland Denmark Austria Norway Poland Czech Republic Slovakia   Romania   Hungary   Serbia   Croatia   Bosnia   Macedonia   Montenegro   Slovenia   Estonia   Latvia   Lithuania   Ukraine   Georgia   Armenia   Uzbekistan   Tajikistan   Turkey   Greece   Albania   S Korea   Singapore   Malaysia   Luxembourg   Italy   Bulgaria   Philippines   

Here is the list of countries that Russia INVAED, as in, added to its territory:


Iran (parts of it)






























And here are the countries that it attacked, in the hope of adding it to its territory but never succeeded:










Turkey (Ottoman Empire)
















Get the point???



The New Cold War

by raha darband (not verified) on

The New Cold War Turns Hot
By Antony Black


Farhad - Are you willing to

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - Are you willing to concede that in the fight against communism, the U.S. was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people (Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, for ex.)?
Also, is the U.S. at all culpable when the people of a country democratically elect a nationalist leader and the U.S. decides that the death and destruction wreaked by a pro-U.S. dictator is preferable? In other words, when the people of Chile democratically elected Salvador Allende, do you agree with Henry Kissinger when he said that "I don't see why we should let a country go communist due to the irresponsiblity of its own people"? If so, then it is hypocritical to then say that the U.S. bears no responsibility for the atrocities committed by Augusto Pinochet. It is the same with Iran. The U.S. decided that the democratically-elected Mossadegh was not the kind of democrat they wanted and that the Shah was actually more preferable. The Shah's dictatorship would not have survived as long as it did without an American-trained SAVAK, just as the Latin American dictators would not have survived as long as they did without their armies receiving training at the School of the Americas in the U.S. There were many countries that wanted to be independent and did not necessarily want to be Soviet client states, the U.S. historically was not willing to give them a chance.



by raha darband (not verified) on

ehtiaaji nist ke adam waghti savade siasi nadare, "maghale" benewise.

Putin Walks into a Trap
By Mike Whitney


Farhad Kashani: Dishonest Every Time

by Zeppelin Fan (not verified) on

You "forget" to mention that the U.S. took democratically elected leaders, like Arbenz of Guatemala (who was not a communist), and overthrew them in favor of military juntas which then killed hundreds of thousands of people (mostly poor peasants and Mayan Indians) with weapons that were given to them by Uncle Sam for the very purpose of killing those people. In Indonesia, the U.S. INCREASED its support of Suharto's genocidal government after the military started massacring people (killing between 500,000 and 1 million people). The CIA gave the Indonesian authorities the names of individuals to kill.

You state: "U.S was fighting communism, and it established strong ties with whoever was fighting communism, since communism declared a global war on the U.S. What Somoza did, had nothing to do with the U.S. Do you think there wasn’t people in Nicaragua who waned to fight communism?"

Look again at the dates below, genius. The U.S. was invading other countries for many decades before the USSR was even established. In those days, it used the excuse of spreading Christianity. It was only later that it found a new excuse. So I guess the U.S. is not to blame when it invades other countries and kills their people by dropping bombs on their heads, right? It invades them by accident or they would have gotten invaded anyway or their "victim mentality" invaded themselves. These are the words of a true-blue US government propagandist.

At the time of his death, General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Unlike an ignorant U.S. government propagandist like you, he knew U.S. foreign policy firsthand. He observed:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".

The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.
1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.
"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News
He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.
"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz crush a strike in Sonora.
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.
"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.
! 1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.
"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.

Farhad Kashani

Siamak, he didn’t make up

by Farhad Kashani on

Siamak, he didn’t make up facts regarding those atrocities actually happening, although, the figures he used are very much questionable in some cases, but that’s besides the point and a different subject. What he fabricated was faulting U.S for those. Again, the will has to be there. If Somoza wanted to kill his people, he could’ve done it without U.S “supplies or training”. So, yeah its will that matter, not the tool. The fact that he used advanced weaponry or techniques only shows how vicious he was, that’s all. U.S was fighting communism, and it established strong ties with whoever was fighting communism, since communism declared a global war on the U.S. What Somoza did, had nothing to do with the U.S. Do you think there wasn’t people in Nicaragua who waned to fight communism? Of course they were. They were the majority if anything. So they established alliance with the U.S since they had a common enemy. So whether those people were savages or great democrats, had nothing to with the U.S. Also, the only way you “set up” a government is when you occupy a country and appoint someone, like a governor.


Ben this is such a

by Jafar (not verified) on

Ben this is such a simplistic point of view. Basically because you live in America and not Russia think they have "imperialistic intentions" and US doesn't?! or if US does it is because there is democracy?! Same.

From Russian's point of view American democracy is "imperialistic intentions", same as your point of view.

I guess you can look at those who have your similar simplistic and selfish views and approve of it.


Farhad - I don't think

by Siamak V (not verified) on

Farhad - I don't think Zeppelin is trying to "fool" anybody. He is not making up the quotes, the dates, or the facts. It takes more than "will" to establish and maintain a dictatorship. If the U.S. has been strong enough to take down governments, it has been strong enough to set them up. Your argument does not respond to the substance of Zeppelin's statements.

Ben - I don't think the choice has to be between "democratic" American aggression and "tyrannical" Russian aggression. I don't think that worldview serves either Iraqi or Chechen mothers, neither of whom deserved to see their children killed. By the way, Iraqis died not just from the "chaos that ensued" the American invasion, but from American bullets and American bombs.



by RaminPersianPride (not verified) on

"While America has condemned and jailed its own soldiers for misconduct in Iraq or other places, and has also accepted responsibility for misdeeds in Vietnam, Iran, or other places, countries like Russia are not used to taking responsibility for their past mistakes."

What are you talking about? From the 4 GIs that raped, shot and then burnt the 14 yr old Iraqi girl, only one of them got a long sentence (but with the possibilty of parole in 10 years!) Have you never heard of the "Tiger Force" in Vietnam? How they slaughtered civilians, and how the US military covered it all up?!??!??! ! What about flight 655? Did the Americans aplogize? Hell they were trying to cover up the whole thing up. VP Bush back then even said that he would never apologize for the US no matter what the facts are. Think before you open your mouth!