Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945

message: Survived: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. mikka (t) 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Survived VfD

message: As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. It was aided in this by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
::As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. )
Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for repressive regimes, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Turkey, and Egypt.
:: Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for governments widely regarded as repressive, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, and Egypt, maintaining that these nations are strategic allies of the US in their respective regions.
See also: History of United States imperialism, List of Soviet actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic
This is a list of United States interventions, including many that have, in some circles, been considered examples of imperialism, though the evidence that there are circles that have considered the interventions as examples of imperialism is not offered. Imperialism is a pejorative word that is usually used to criticize these actions. The list is an incomplete list. The "some circles" have not been identifieed, so the criteria for inclusion in the list is not revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date. The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed. Kd4ttc 5th time
Beyond these interventions, the United States has also pursued and gained economic control over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require the implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. ) 
* Vietnam War - (1964-1975) - estimated deaths of three million Vietnamese.
* Bombing campaigns against Laos, with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two, from 1964 - 1975.
* CIA support for death-squads in El Salvador throughout the 1980s.
* US bombing of factory in Sudan - later admitted to be a mistake - in 1998.
* CIA and MI-6 orchestrated overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 (Operation Ajax), reinstating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who led Iran in a period of strong economic growth, gave women the vote, and redistributed land to farmers, but created an unpopular autocratic regime and was overthrown in 1979.  Travb 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments Deleted 

message: I noticed, CJK, you said giving out names and weapons to Suharto's regime isn't intervening in their affairs. If a dictator came to power in the U.S. and another country armed and trained that dictator once he came to power, would you consider that intervening in the affairs of the United States? What if 5,000 U.S. citizens were hunted down and killed because a powerful outside influence helped pinpoint them. Would you say that was intervening in the affairs of the United States? Please be logical in your reply. If you don't bother to reply I'll just put it back up. Richard Cane 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the US merely handed over a list and just that. The US was not actively involved in hunting down these guys, many of whom would have been killed anyway in Suharto's anti-comunist massacres. CJK 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I have already been banned for 72 hours for stating what I feel about your opinion, So I won't and I can't say anything more here. In legal terms, what you are justifying is called an accessory to a crime.  If America were on trial, they would be tried and found guilty of murder of the Indonesians.   Keep on deleting CJK, keep on deleting and justifying. Travb 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? I never once justified anything, just asserted that it is utterly ridiculous that handing over a list should be counted as an intervention. CJK 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, which is a good one.  We need to come to a concencious on what a "intervention" is. Maybe this article needs to be renamed, it has the same name problem, to a lesser extent, as the article named History of United States imperialism.  I won't elaborate on the whole justification comment...Travb 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suharto 

message: Sesel your contribution:
Palestinian legislative election, 2006: USAID contribution of $2 million to the election campaign of Fatah, intended to counter the influence of Hamas . 
Appears not to fall within the proposed definition of "intervention"  please see the "potential ground rules" above to avoid an unmanagable list and edit wars between apologists and anti-americans.
I did not erase your contribution, but simply made it invisible until we can reach a concensus here on this talk page.
Let me know what you think.Travb 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong list

message: ... is going on at the talk page of List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945 Kalkin 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger discussion 

message: I again maintain that giving Suharto a list and ignoring his invasion of East Timor does not constitute "intervention". CJK 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Do you meant that we should include the invasion of East Timor, please clarify.Travb 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response on your talk page.Travb 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, I see many interventions missing. But how is intervention defined? Any secret military dealings, or any infereference of a deliberate political nature to affect the poitical reality of a country?Giovanni33 09:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So. . . you are a known contract killer, CJK, (for the sake of argument) and, without paying you for the specific acts, I *wink* and offer you a list of people I would like to see killed.  You then kill them.  In a court of law, We're both guilty of a crime. . .   Now, if I get to *write* the laws, or at the very least, selectively determine which ones apply to me, I can write myself exemptions or pretend that I didn't do anything wrong, but an independent court would still find me guilty of the crime.  That's pretty clearly an intervention, and it is quite in character, because there are plenty of other similar incidents which had the same result: have a look at the list provided to Saddam, for example.  I suppose that if you'd like to continue splitting hairs, you can go on doing that, but I'm glad that the laws of my country aren't written that way, because we'd have a hell of a lot more violent criminals on the streets today than we do, and a lot more of the people who conspire with them. Sigma-6 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your example is called the Domestic analogy a term used by liberal hawk, Michael Walzer. I use the same example with CJK.  See: User_talk:CJK#Domestic_analogy  Notice this conversation is very cold--the original converstaion was back in February. Travb (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware that it was the domestic analogy, and I was aware that the conversation was cold.  I was not aware of a resolution however, so I assumed that further arguments might still be presented.  If I was wrong, then I apologize. Sigma-6 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, I assumed to much.  Sorry.  Best wishes. Travb (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suharto again