So World War 3 is about to start and the coli not speaking on it ?

[No1]

Please provide examples then. And if you say the Iraq war then I'm going to give you the face.

If anything, the burden of proof is on you. There's such an overabundance of literature and declassified files on the issue in favor of my position that I don't even know where to start. U.S-Latin American relations is so filled with stuff like that that I don't know what to tell you. Just google the 1954 Guatemala coup and the United Fruit Company.

 

[Economics]

Oh dear, you're actually one of those idiots that believes the Iraq war occurred because the US wanted to increase the profit margins of American oil companies? That's both hilarious and sad at the same time dude. No historian believes that, and this is coming from a long term student of American history that has read everything and anything written on American IR iin modern history.

Anyway get back to me when you've read a lot more books on history and international politics dude. :id:

where did I say oil companies in my posts? You like to put words in peoples mouths and do a lot of implications I see, but I used your own words against you and dropped links to what I was trying help YOU understand about war profiteering. And as you just seen another poster actually understood other firms and people profit from war not just oil and some states and cities actually rely a lot on defense spending like South Carolina and Cali. Its the MIC (you know that acronym right breh, I mean since you so smart). Just stop it man. I'm not going to have an non American trying to "school" me on my own country and its history when you already don't know what they are talking about. Just stop man.

 

[Turenne]

If anything, the burden of proof is on you. There's such an overabundance of literature and declassified files on the issue in favor of my position that I don't even know where to start.

Stop making shyt up dude.

Just google the 1954 Guatemala coup and the United Fruit Company.

Oh you mean the coup engineered to stop the spread of communism in the third world per American foreign policy post-WW2...?

 

[CurrencyChase]

...and your point is what? That Syria, Russia, NATO and the US are going to go into a huge regional war in the Middle East sinking their own economies and doing massive political and diplomatic damage inside and outside their countries so a few arms companies can improve their profit margins?

Give me a fukking break, politicians do not make decisions in the realm of international relations to benefit a handful of companies or businessman.

Fail.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Oh you mean the coup engineered to stop the spread of communism

WHO IS MOST THREATENED BY A MARXIST REVOLUTION, BROTHER?

 

[Turenne]

where did I say oil companies in my posts? You like to put words in peoples mouths and do a lot of implications I see, but I used you own words against you and dropped links to what I was trying help YOU understand about war profiteering. And as you just seen another poster actually understood other firms and people profit from war not just oil and some states and cities actually rely a lot on defense spending like South Carolina and Cali. Its the MIC (you know that acronym right breh, I mean since you so smart). Just stop it man. I'm not going to have an non American trying to "school" me on my own country and its history when you already don't know what they are talking about. Just stop man.

I learned about war profiteering and heard about the military-industrial complex when I was like 12. Its insolence on your part to think you are 'schooling' me on anything - in fact, I just want you and that other dude to explain how these subjects relate to the the subject in hand (Syria, Turkey and the possibility of a regional war). Feel free to debate with me on this point, rather then making random points.

Be warned though, I've no interest debating with xenophobes. Keep that shyt for the retards. Your 'you are not American stop talking about America' shyt is just embarrassing and makes you look ignorant.

 

[Turenne]

Fail.

Good post dude, you truly convinced me.

 

[No1]

Stop making shyt up dude.



Oh you mean the coup engineered to stop the spread of communism in the third world per American foreign policy post-WW2...?

Are you trolling? This can't be life. Look, I'm at work until 4:30 so I'll leave you with a few sentences and if you're still on this bullshyt at 5 PM I'd be more than willing to knock some sense into. LOL@the US not acting primarily for oil ever in history. I'm going to enjoy tearing that up if that's what you're espousing when I get back. Google Saudia Arabia-US History in the meantime. The United States acted in Guatemala after the United Fruit Company asked them to. Initially, they had no fear of Ibanez (I'm probably fukking up that name). They saw him as akin to FDR in many ways initially. You are right that they feared the spread of communism, but the UFC was in their ear and both the Dulles' had capital stock in the company.

Ibanez sought to nationalize the company in a lot of ways and much of the land that could be given to the peasants were essentially reserved for business. There were large plots of land that the company and business just owned, but weren't even put into use. UFC owned that country in many ways. Howard Hunt and others have come forward and said the conflation of interests was pivotal and that UFC had an impact in that decision.

I never said entirely, but I'm telling you that our politics and business interests have almost always been intertwined in our foreign policy. Even if it is only a select corporation or group of corporations that we are benefiting.

 

[No1]

I learned about war profiteering and heard about the military-industrial complex when I was like 12. Its insolence on your part to think you are 'schooling' me on anything - in fact, I just want you and that other dude to explain how these subjects relate to the the subject in hand (Syria, Turkey and the possibility of a regional war). Feel free to debate with me on this point, rather then making random points.

Be warned though, I've no interest debating with xenophobes. Keep that shyt for the retards. Your 'you are not American stop talking about America' shyt is just embarrassing and makes you look ignorant.

I only responded to your one broad statement, I didn't even read through this Syria topic. I was responding to that one plainly foolish comment you made. I haven't followed the Syria stuff enough in recent months.

 

[Economics]

I learned about war profiteering and heard about the military-industrial complex when I was like 12. Its insolence on your part to think you are 'schooling' me on anything - in fact, I just want you and that other dude to explain how these subjects relate to the the subject in hand (Syria, Turkey and the possibility of a regional war). Feel free to debate with me on this point, rather then making random points.

Be warned though, I've no interest debating with xenophobes. Keep that shyt for the retards. Your 'you are not American stop talking about America' shyt is just embarrassing and makes you look ignorant.

Nice I like it . I'm not trying to school you on anything, that's what you were directing at me when you said read more history books. Like I said, I dropped a link that was a very well known book on war profiteering and if you knew so much you wouldn't even of quoted the new poster talking about elaborate. I answered your question about the current topic in my first response if you actually read it. You started the red herrings you are referring too by going on that rant AFTER I provided the pdf link to the reply to the poster. Also, its more insulting that you are telling me to read history books about my country like I haven't or something and I see you from Ireland but already not responding correctly to the current responses. I'm not xenophobic. You trying to be slick right now.

 

[Turenne]

I never said entirely, but I'm telling you that our politics and business interests have almost always been intertwined in our foreign policy. Even if it is only a select corporation or group of corporations that we are benefiting.

Its Arbenz btw. And you are now moving the goalposts. And dude I've studied the coup in Guatemala in detail, as far as I am concerned it was a continuation in American policy since 1945 (since the Monroe Doctrine in fact), a rollback of 'communism' in what America considered its backyard.

Just to make it clear, I'm arguing that politicians do not make decisions in the realm of international relations to improve the profits of a few domestic businessman or companies. That is all I am arguing - nothing more. As far as I am concerned, decisions in international politics are made for strategic reasons based around realism i.e. improving the position of the nation-state, not improving the wallets of a few businessman. Pretty simple and reasonable to understand I think, although economics seems to be struggling with the concept for whatever reason.

 

[No1]

Its Arbenz btw. And you are now moving the goalposts. And dude I've studied the coup in Guatemala in detail, as far as I am concerned it was a continuation in American policy since 1945 (since the Monroe Doctrine in fact), a rollback of 'communism' in what America considered its backyard.

Just to make it clear, I'm arguing that politicians do not make decisions in the realm of international relations to improve the profits of a few domestic businessman or companies. That is all I am arguing - nothing more. As far as I am concerned, decisions in international politics are made for strategic reasons based around realism i.e. improving the position of the nation-state, not improving the wallets of a few businessman. Pretty simple and reasonable to understand I think, although economics seems to be struggling with the concept for whatever reason.

I see what you're saying. It is strategic, but that strategy often involves directly benefiting corporations. Guatemala just looked really ugly because the CIA Director and his brother both owned capitol stock in UFC. That and that UFC asked them directly to intervene by any means possible, but that in and of itself is not damning. Any American-based corporation on the verge of being nationalized would ask the US government for assistance. But I agree that it is a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[Economics]

Its Arbenz btw. And you are now moving the goalposts. And dude I've studied the coup in Guatemala in detail, as far as I am concerned it was a continuation in American policy since 1945 (since the Monroe Doctrine in fact), a rollback of 'communism' in what America considered its backyard.

Just to make it clear, I'm arguing that politicians do not make decisions in the realm of international relations to improve the profits of a few domestic businessman or companies. That is all I am arguing - nothing more. As far as I am concerned, decisions in international politics are made for strategic reasons based around realism i.e. improving the position of the nation-state, not improving the wallets of a few businessman. Pretty simple and reasonable to understand I think, although economics seems to be struggling with the concept for whatever reason.

Not struggling with it bro. They aren't mutually exclusive though. The decisions made on the world stage via international relations often lead to someone's pockets getting lined up. The mutual exchanges you are talking about on the international relations front aren't divorced from economics and the rent seeking others are referring to especially in the war economy and/or defense industry. But drop some history books that will help me and others understand more about the U.S. (not trying to be funny with you right now) I'm always down for more knowledge if its proper .

 

[Turenne]

No problem dude. Undeniably people do benefit from war, that's hardly up for debate.

Anyway you should check out Micheal H. Hunt's stuff. Get...

Amazon.com: Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (9780300139259): Prof. Michael H. Hunt: Books

Amazon.com: The American Ascendancy: How the United States Gained and Wielded Global Dominance (Caravan Book) eBook: Michael H. Hunt: Kindle Store

The second one is a must read for any American.

He also seems to put up blogs here...

on washington and the world – Michael H. Hunt

Glad this shyt got sorted out amicably.

 

[Turenne]

If you or anyone else want some more specific recs just ask btw, on Vietnam, Iraq etc.