A Map of over 200 years of U.S interventions Outbackjack: This map came as a bit of a shock to me.Apart from the obvious interventions in Mexico I have come to think of the modern age of U.S Imperialism as starting around the U.S - Spanish war of 1898.But this is not so. It was going on 100 years before that.  chronology: Have not seen the Map Jack, but I would find that assertion a little puzzling. Young 'Columbia' (America) had no Navy to speak of in the early 19th Century, and had to rely on Britain's Royal Navy to enforce 'The Monroe Doctrine'. The Americans had no say at all in administering the Monroe Doctrine which seems to have been a London idea rather than a Philadelphia one. The pay off for Britain of course was that London could control the Trade coming out of Latin America. One of the problems young America faced was to remain free of manipulation of Europe in it's growth. Britain's dream was to cut off America's expansion to the Pacific. It is claimed by some that Brigham Young was an Agent of this strategy. Mormonism was said to have created to implant an barrier for American movement to the Pacific. Mormons would vigorously dispute this, but it does seem a fact that they planned to create a 'Kingdom' in Utah which would have effectively complicated American growth in the transcontinental routes. British Corporations where forever hoping to gain control of Texas and Louisiana. New Orleans would have secured control of shipping to the Mississippi. Anyway you look at the history Philadelphia, then Washington, was really forced into taking action to prevent being caged in and chained down. Outbackjack: The Monroe doctrine was one of the biggest hypocritical documents ever written.It basically said European imperialism was not allowed but Yankee Imperialism was. Have a look at that link Chrono.Its from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the equivalent of the BBC. chronology: Jack, again with respect you are letting your prejudice against America blind you to very obvious facts in history. Again Jack, I ask you 'if America was being hypocritical with the Monroe Doctrine, how did they plan to enforce such a Doctrine? The Navy of young 'Columbia' had virtually no ships at all, The Continental Navy (the original name of the U.S. Navy) had around 5 ships it could put to sea, it was more of a Masonic Lodge than a Navy, compare that with Britain, France and Spain. A little known Sea Battle in 1780 involved around 73 British Ships and over 100 French and Spanish ships nearly 200 warships involved there Jack, remember America had around 5 ships at the time. The entire British fleet in the Battle was captured with all their supplies apart from 8 ships which were sunk. Thousands of weapons, tents and cannons were taken from a Regiment on board the British ships by the Spanish Navy. To say this made Philadelphia nervous would be the understatement of the week. Hence the Americans had to start making statements that they were determined to resist further expansion in the Western Hemisphere. A point of history Jack is that the U.S. Navy did not gain superiority in the North and South Atlantic until around 1920. Then the U.S. had no option but to begin building up it's Fleet to counter the ever expanding Navies of Germany in the Atlantic and Japan in the Pacific. Outbackjack: You still haven't looked at the map. Why would the U.S need a navy when the Panama canal had not even been built.You can blockade isolated ports with a navy but when the U.S intervened they could easily resupply in South America. Look at the map.I wasn't even aware of how early U.S Imperialism began until I looked at it and read further. chronology: Jack, back then Navies were everything in International Politics and Trade. Remember Jack, The U.S. Merchant Marine was still the only practical way of reaching the Californian Ports in the early 1800s. Land travel was impractical due to lack of roads and bridges. It was quicker to sail around the South Horn of Patagonia and back up the Pacific Coast of South America than try and haul goods across the The Great Plains and the Rockies. Still don't buy the 'U.S. Imperialism' stuff. The U.S. was forced into moving West, had it not Spain France,and England would have been hoisting their Flags on U.S. Western Boarders. In 1845, the U.S. still could not enforce the Monroe Doctrine when Britain invaded Argentina trying to take the place over. Am not criticising Britain, it was the 'Law of the Jungle' everywhere back then. chronology: Jack. I have tried to. I just keep getting 'Zionist' American aggression links full of the usual BS. chronology: Jack you fine fellow, calm down. After your ticking me off I made another search and eventually found the Web Page. Come on Jack, really I think you have misread the story. Yes, the U.S. like every country has had to send Military Forces at times, but often the U.S. has been 'protecting' other countries, not attacking them. It was really fun to read how the U.S. Navy had to go and arrest some nutjob who was privately trying to set up his own country in Nicaragua. Seems the Guy set out from the U.S. with his own Army and invaded Nicaragua, Washington sent the U.S. Navy after him and brought him back to the U.S. I already knew how Jefferson had to deal with the Pirates in North Africa. There must have been a reason why Britain and France never dealt with the thieves. Any way, the U.S. Navy Guys had to go and give them a good thrashing. And good on them for doing that, if I was a Merchant Sailor I would not like my throat being cut and be thrown into the sea. Outbackjack: Protecting? And which time in Nicaragua are you referring to? I would like specific examples of this "protecting." chronology: Jack, with respect you are seeing the U.S. through a magnifying glass of prejudice. In the case of William Walker you have a man who was an American 'Cecil Rhodes'. He dreamed of a Slave owning Empire in Latin America with himself as the President. This was not United States Official policy, Walker drew his main support from the Southern Confederacy at the time. There were many supporters of Walker in the U.S. who dreamed of freeing California from the Catholic Church and Mexico, but that was not the official policy of the U.S. Congress who ordered the U.S. Navy to bring Walker back to the U.S. If Walker had listened to Officials in Washington he would not have been hanged when he disobeyed them and again returned to Central America. France, Britain and Spain, and yes, the U.S. were all interested in Central America at that time because they all had some kind of plans to build a Atlantic/Pacific Canal and be the masters of that canal. It was Britain that ended Walkers hopes there by supplying weapons to his rivals. Some folks in the U.S. still see Walker as a hero, their 'Cecil Rhodes' but unlike the British Government with Rhodes, Washington did not support Walker. Perhaps because Washington saw Walker as a 'Busted Flush' to use the American term. As history unfolded, Washington was proved right.  AussieOi: Very interesting Jack, funny how the WW2 era of USA troops in Europe didn't show up at all. Outbackjack: I don't know of this William Walker. Prejudice? That's unfair.The U.S,U.K,France,Spain and many other countries have had imperialist ambitions and still do.Even Australia has in Papua New Guinea and still does in the Solomon Islands. Outbackjack: Yes.But where would I stop. Portugal,Turkey,Japan,New Zealand etc.I could even say Robert the Bruce of Scotland as he invaded Ireland.  davidk14: . That is what anarchy is. Total disrespect of government authority and / or private business authority and any control whatsoever. Outbackjack: I am taking about Imperialism. But while you are on the subject I don't know of any government who deserves respect and I definitely wont have any private business ANY authority over me.  lori100: Gen. Wesley Clark-------"Ten days post-9/11, he visited Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. They met at the Pentagon. "No one will tell us where or when to bomb", he was told. Military commanders said Iraq will be attacked. "I walked out of there pretty upset," said Clark. On a second visit, he learned more. He was told plans were to "destroy the governments in seven countries." Besides Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran would be targeted. He knew a decade earlier. In 1991, he wore one star. He visited Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. He did so at the Pentagon. They met after Operation Desert Storm. He was stunned by what he heard. America intended multiple premeditated wars. Policymakers want the Middle East destabilized. They want it redrawn. They want it turned upside down. They want unchallenged US control. They want America's military might used destructively. They want it used "to start wars and change governments. It's not to deter conflicts," said Clark. It's not about liberation and spreading democracy. Wolfowitz said "we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein....But one thing we did learn. We can use our military anywhere in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us." "And we've got about five or 10 years to clean out those old Soviet client regimes." He named Syria, Iran, and Iraq. He suggested other countries. He called multiple wars essential "before the next great superpower comes along to challenge us." http://www.rense.com/general96/general.html | Politics Chat Room 77 People Chatting Similar Conversations |