Talk:American imperialism/Archive 1

message: I hereby dispute the neutrality of this article. While the author mentions that 
"America's military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential", I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. Look how much the US has messed with the interior politcs of "Former" Colonies like Cuba or the Dominican Republic. There is a difference between calling a state independent and being independent - the current example is the recent "indepence" of Iraq.
I also believe that the millions of live lost because of american wars of agression and because they supported questionable regimes, for example in order to support the financial goals of US Companies ( United Fruit) should be mentioned in this article.
Turrican 22:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, go ahead and do it.  Remember: Wikipedia:Be Bold in Editing. --Ryanaxp 22:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Someone wrote: "Most of America's former colonies have since become independent countries, states of the American union, or self-governing commonwealths"
Ahem. While this is true, it is still false. Most of these (notably the Philippines) didnt get to be "independent countries" by the simple tutorship of America. Nonsense -- read up on the Phillipine-American war, Cuba.-戴眩sv</Strong>
It never said "thanks to America most of these former colonies have since become..."
user:J.J.
I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. 
Sure, sure, the USA is the sheriff of the world, bringers of light and paladines of all that is just and good. Who wouldnt want them to bring peace and salvation to your country? LtDoc 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute of neutrality

message: What exactly does this passage mean:
"Often by exporting America's self popularized political system to a conquered territory with false promises of self-government, only in exchange for America's military occupation and total control of its natural resources. Such can be seen where America's post Cold War military involvements are primarily focused on mineral rich regions of the world."
I think I understand the gist, but its wording is a little confusing. user:J.J.
:The "gist" of it is "America is evil." So much for a NPOV. This article is a masturbatory fantasy of the American extreme Left and for America-haters (or maybe not 'hate' as much as envy) around the globe. The article's very title betrays a horribly slanted POV. It is a political pamphlet pretending to be an unbiased source. Much like the American and European media. The real debate is whether it deserves a massive re-write or deletion. It's a disgrace. Nhprman 02:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note please that the paragraph quoted above has not been in the article for some time.  Do you believe that the present version fails NPOV?  Can you be more specific?  (The title was changed from "American Empire" to "American Empire (term)" to avoid precisely the criticism you make, if you look at the talk and history.)  Do you believe that criticisms of America as imperialist should not be described on Wikipedia?  Kalkin 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "term" does mollify me somewhat, and there are some good qualifiers here, but is Wikipedia the place for this? Well, maybe, if Wikipedia is a compendium of every political argument. Frankly, I think this kind of article turns Wikipedia into more of a "chat board," complete with flame wars (disguised as 'talk pages') than a true encyclopedia. Nhprman 04:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For major academic and political disputes?  I think yes, Wikipedia is the (or a) place.  Notice the number of citations for each point - and I've already removed most of the book title mentions in my recent reorganization, because they were crowding the article, and this is a sample only.  I've generally never understood the preference many Wikipedians have for removing "unencyclopedic" and/or "obscure" material; it seems to me that since for something like Wikipedia there's very little cost to having extra articles, it should rather be used to expand the idea of an encyclopedia.  But regardless, Wikipedia covers (1) historical facts, theories, and controversies, and (2) major political ideologies.  The subject matter of this article falls into both categories.  Kalkin 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of paragraph?

message: If this article is to be about a political and rhetorical view of the United States and not about some actual entity (the United States territory outside of the 50 states), then the article title needs some kind of qualification.  In that case, information from this article about American imperial territory should be removed to some other article. -Acjelen 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How that would be different from the article History of United States imperialism? --Kevin Myers 13:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Since the half of this article about actual extra-state territories is duplicating the article History of United States imperialism, that half should be merged there.  The article will need a clear qualifier to its title and a good see reference at the top. -Acjelen 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name, Split 

message: So I merged some material from this page to the article History of United States imperialism and removed other details that were duplicated there.  I also reworded the see reference at the top.  In these ways, this article will be more focused on its subject of "American Empire" as a rhetorical device. -Acjelen 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: The argument that the U.S. only intervenes in "mineral rich" nations is unfounded...Yugoslavia 1999 anyone?  The cost of the war in Iraq far exceeds whatever "oil profits" might be made.
The wording was 'primarily', not 'only'. A semantic but important difference. Tommyknockers 17:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia? 

message: I moved a paragraph from the introduction to a new section on cultural imperialism.  I outlined a little bit of that debate, mostly just enough to put in links to other articles.  I also removed one clause entirely: They point out that the U.S. has not actually expanded overseas with new territories in over 100 years,
This is simply false.  Besides countless (officially) temporary occupations, the U.S. gained new territories in the South Pacific after World War Two, and if we're talking about actual annexation, I believe Alaska and Hawaii became states in the 20th century, though they were already territories. Kalkin 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultural imperialism 

message: Could we a global map that shows all the land the US ever controlled?Cameron Nedland 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Certain sections have been made invisibile using  , I was going to add the  footnote, but this is really not an issue of citing your sources, because I am not arguing the facts, it is more of citing examples of who said this.  Please state who advocates these views, and use quotations if possible.  
If someone else knows of a better footnote/template other than  which adresses this problem, please make these paragraphs visible and add this footnote.
Sections made invisible   because of lact of source material: 
::Proponents of the idea that the United States is an empire point to the unrivaled superpower status of the United States since the end of the Cold War, arguably making the country a hyperpower. Some believe that the westward expansion of the United States in the 19th century was the beginning of an American empire, and that subsequent overseas expansion and foreign intervention (military and non-military) are part of a legacy of American imperialism.
::Opponents of the terms generally believe that, while the United States flirted with the possibility of an American Empire at the time of the Spanish-American War, the United States has since rejected the role of empire, and to equate the superpower status of the United States with empire or imperialism is incorrect. Some believe that accusations of "American imperialism" are rooted in anti-Americanism, and take offense at the use of such terminology.
::Cultural imperialism is not entirely independent from military imperialism.  Some critics of American empire argue either that cultural imperialism consists of fundamentally the same exercise of power as more obviously coercive modes of imperialism, or simply that cultural imperialism is what provides intellectual cover for direct imperialism, through such racist ideas as that of The White Man's Burden.
::Opponents of theories of cultural imperialism argue that it is the innocent result of consumers across the world desiring American goods and the "American lifestyle."  A worldwide fascination with the United States (and Hollywood) has not been forced on anyone in ways similar to what is traditionally described as an empire, differentiating it from the actions of the British Empire and other more easily identified empires throughout history.  These defenders of what is described as "cultural imperialism" may identify the desire to preserve the purity of one's culture as, in fact, fundamentally racist.
::A closely related debate is that over globalization, which is described by many, defenders and critics equally, as the successor to traditional imperialism.  These thinkers generally fall into the category of those who believe that imperialism is a past stage in American history.
Signed Travb 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraphs which have been made invisibile, awating references

message: I will contact the author
::It is a logical consequence of the neorealist view that the primary motivation of nearly all states, namely self-interest in order to survive in an anarchic world, is fundamentally identical.
:::I'm the author of that sentence.  I'll try to expand it and see if you understand and can maybe suggest better wording.  Neorealists think that all states determine their foreign policy on roughly the same basis, namely by determining what is in their national interest - which is not always well defined, but seems to be economic, military, and generally material - and carrying that out without much consideration of ethics or other ideological considerations.  This view is supported by the Hobbesian argument that the anarchic nature of international relations forces actors to be self-interested; ethics only works when you have an enforcer of some kind.  One of its consequences is that distinctions between "empires" and "non-empires" don't have much theoretical import; any such differences are matters of quantity of power not quality. Kalkin 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this is starting to feel less like a hobby/escape and more like my International Affairs class.  I can pull this idea out of my textbook and post it here in a couple of days.Travb 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences which I don't understand what the author is trying to say

message: These actions, it is alleged, make up a pattern of aggression too consistent to be ignored and too bloody to be accepted, and require a theory of imperialism (Leninist, isolationist, or otherwise) to explain them.Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sentence which draws the (rather obvious) inference from 'lots-o-interventions' to 'empire', to make clear its relevance to the article.  I guess it may need citation.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalkin I am honestly rather confused what you are trying to say.  Can you clarify?Travb 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: two

message: It is much more popular outside of the United States than within it.Travb 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasely and sourceless, drop.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: three

message: ::Others may put the start and end of the period of American empire at different historical locations, but what they hold importantly in common is the view that the United States no longer exercises imperial power in any significant fashion.Travb 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parallel summary sentence for the third category.  I added each of these; the point is to define what makes a thinker fall into a section.  Perhaps it could be done better - if you have a better idea please use it, but some definition is necessary. Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you rewrite this, clarifying what you wrote?  I need to go pick up my son and do my homework. Thanks for your efforts.Travb 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: five

message: ==The denial of exceptionalism==
Some argue that the United States is exceptional neither in good nor in evil.  These thinkers agree with leftists that a naive American exceptionalism misleads many into ignoring the United States' flaws, but argue that at the other end of the scale, overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place them in historical or worldwide contexts, falling prey to an inverted American exceptionalism that sees only American problems.  The United States is a nation-state much like any other, on this view. Travb 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this remains from when the article was largely a paraphrase of Stuart Creighton Miller.  It should be cited to him, probably.Kalkin 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I added the Miller stuff.  I don't know where this came from.  The word "some" makes my skin crawl.  This paragraph, whoever wrote it, needs to be reworded and sourced.Travb 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: six

message: Deleted:
"This idea of a completly unique social system makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with American social flaws associated with the "Old World," such as militarism, imperialism, inequality, and the misuse of power"
This is actually from Miller: 
::The notion of such a cultural metamorphosis is entirely romantic, but the concept of a totally unique social system fashioned solely by the experiences of colonial Americans is in harmony with the prevailing pragmatic (practical) style of America. It also makes it difficult for many Americans to come to grips with social flaws associated with the “Old World,” such as militarism, imperialism, inequality, and the misuse of power. The tendency of highly patriotic Americans is to deny such abuses and even assert that they could never exist in their country. At the other end of the scale, overly self-critical Americans tend to exaggerate the nation’s flaws, failing to place then in historical or worldwide contexts.
...but I can see why you feel it is POV Kalkin.   
There are some books I would like to read that address this subject, but I don't have the energy to pursue this now. Some of the books include:Seymour Martin Lipset's American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.  I have come across this deleted idea before in scholarly journals too. 
But again how can you quantify what all Americans feel?  Too broad. It just feels like POV.  So I have to agree with your edit. 
How to quantify such ideas?  A poll?  That is the problem with the social sciences, broad statments like this are hard to accuratly measure, especially when the author is talking about an entire society's views, beliefs, and ideas.
Goodbye pet sentence, I will miss you!Travb 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's POV not because it asserts what Americans feel, but because it asserts something most Americans would disagree with.  I think it's fine to assert, as the article does, that most Americans believe that America is exceptional in some way; I don't know anyone who would dispute that.  But I know lots of people who would dispute the idea that Americans have a hard time coming to grips with militarism, imperialism, inequality, etc.  The sentence shouldn't necessarily be deleted - but if it stays it should go under one of the "schools of thought" sections rather than the intro which is supposedly neutral between them. I suppose it would most likely be in the first, although Miller himself does not seem to be.  Kalkin 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You right.  Thanks for your comments.Travb 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My pet sentence

message: travb, your removal of weaseliness is mostly very useful, but I have two basic problems with the current state of the article, which I think involve a disagreement with your edits:
(1) less importantly, I think it is perfectly legitimate to make unattributed claims about what "some" say in the introduction to the article.  The point is that these claims will be sourced in the detailed sections below.  We can't mention every author in the intro, any selection would be arbitrary, but also the basic positions should be outlined.  If there are claims in the intro that aren't sourced below, those should be removed, but some weasel-words might stay.
(2) more importantly, I think that Miller should not be used as a source for a description of any of the three schools of thought, in their particular section.  Each should POV-describing section should base its description of the POV directly on those who hold it, not mediated through the position of someone who has his own, differing POV.  For example I have a problem with including the claim that anti-imperialists are "overly self-critical Americans" in the section describing the anti-imperialist argument.  That's a POV position, and its not the anti-imperialist POV which is being described, so including it there makes it sound like its supposed to be objective.  I think problems like that are likely to be inevitable as long as we use opponents' characterizations of positions; this should be minimized to the greatest extent possible if not eliminated.
What do you think? For now, I'm just going to restore a new and improved cultural imperialism section, I'll wait to make changes along the lines above till I get an ok. Kalkin 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for your comments and sensitivity to my feelings, edit away, I will let you know if I have objections.  I agree that  "overly self-critical Americans" is probably POV.  You can take out the name Miller, but I suggest leaving the footnote to him, since the format was originally created by him and the idea of this format was inspired by him.  Edit away, I will comment as I have time.  Need to take my son to school.  Again, thanks for your courteousy.Travb 13:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of quatifying a sentence by "some say" why not simply write the statment? "It is argued..." this is still a weasel type format, but it sounds less weaselly then "Some" and "others"....Travb 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  But he shouldn't be used for the actual description of those schools of thought in their sections I would have to disagree, unless you can find an author who writes much clearer than Miller, then I am all for it.Travb 22:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: ... was me. Right now the first school of though is a little disproportionately long, but I'm planning to expand the second and third as well, when I get a chance. Kalkin 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19:12, 1 March 2006 160.39.236.156 

message: 35 countries which America has intervened in since  since 1945
Between World War II and the present, the United States intervened more than 35 times in developing countries around the world. But our research shows that in only one case—Colombia after the American decision in 1989 to engage in the war on drugs—did a full-fledged, stable democracy with: 
#limits on executive power, 
#clear rules for the transition of power, 
#universal adult suffrage, and 
#competitive elections emerge within 10 years. 
That’s a success rate of less than 3 percent.
-- Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work 
The list the authors use in the article "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work" is from Patrick Regan:
"Our analyses focus on military interventions between 1948 and 2001. Patrick Regan (2000) has amassed a comprehensive dataset of such military interventions." INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs 
On page 153-158 of Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict, available on Google print, is the Appendix: Cases of Civil conflicts and interventions.  Since I am manually entering this information and our conversation is only about America, I will only re-type American interventions.
 * "ongoing" means the conflict was ongoing as of 1994, the year this information was compiled.
Time span*  	Country           	Casualties	Intervenor(s)                 	Target                                                	Outcome
1948-1949   	Greece            	200,000   	USUKAlbaniaYugoslavia Bulgaria	GovernmentGovernmentOppositionOppositionOpposition    	SucessSucessFailureFailureFailure
1946-1950   	China             	300,000   	USTaiwan                      	GovernmentOpposition                                  	FailureFailure
1949-1962   	Colombia          	30,000    	US                            	Government                                            	Failure
1950-1952   	Philippines       	3,000     	US                            	Government                                            	Success
1954        	Guatemala         	2,000     	US                            	Opposition                                            	Success
1956-1960   	Indonesia         	50,000    	USChina                       	GovernmentOpposition                                  	SuccessFailure
1958        	Lebanon           	30,000    	USUKSyria                     	Government GovernmentOpposition                       	SuccessSuccess  Failure
1960-1965   	South Vietnam     	300,000   	US  North Vietnam             	GovernmentOpposition                                  	Failure  Failure
1960-1962   	Laos              	30,000    	US USSR South Vietnam         	Opposition Opposition Opposition                      	Success  Success  Success
1962-1991   	Ethiopia          	45,000    	US Cuba Cuba USSR USSR Sudan  	GovernmentOppositionGovernmentOpposition Opposition   	Failure  Failure  Failure  Failure  Failure
1963-1973   	Laos              	18,000    	US France North Vietnam       	GovernmentGovernmentOpposition                        	Failure  Failure  Failure
1965        	Domitican Republic	1,000     	US  Hondoras                  	Government Government                                 	Success  Success
1965-1985   	Thailand          	10,000    	US  China  Malaysia           	Government Opposition Government                      	Failure  Failure  Failure
1966-1972   	Gutemala          	45,500    	US                            	Government                                            	Failure
1967        	Zaire             	2,000     	US  Belgium                   	Government Opposition                                 	Success  Failure
1970-1994   	South Africa      	14,500    	UN US  UKUSSR                 	Government Opposition Opposition Opposition           	Failure  Success  Success  Failure
1970-1975   	Cambodia          	150,000   	USNorth Vietnam  South Vietnam	Government Opposition  Government                     	Failure  Success  Failure
1971        	Sri Lanka         	1,000     	USUKUSSRIndia  Pakistan       	Government Government Government Government Government	Success  Success  Success Success Success
1974        	Lebanon           	125,000   	US  FranceSyriaIsrael         	Government  Government OppositionGovernment           	Failure Failure Failure Failure
1975-Ongoing	Indonesia         	200,000   	USCanada                      	Opposition Opposition                                 	Failure Failure
1975-1991   	Angolia           	102,000   	USCubaUSSRZaire South Africa  	Opposition  GovernmentGovernmentOpposition Opposition 	Failure  Failure  Failure  Failure  Failure
1978-1984   	Guatemala         	21,000    	US USSR                       	Government                                            	Failure
1978-1992   	Afghanistan       	200,000   	USUSSRIranPakistan            	Opposition  Government Opposition  Opposition         	Failure  Failure  Failure  Failure
1978-1979   	Nicaragua         	30,000    	US                            	Government                                            	Failure
1979-1982   	El Salvador       	60,000    	US  Honduras                  	Government  Government                                	Failure  Failure
--restricted page--
Time span   	Country	Casualties	Intervenor(s)	Target                           	Outcome
1991-Ongoing	Somalia	300,000   	UNUS         	Neutral Netural                  	FailureFailure
1991-Ongoing	Iraq   	500,000   	UNUS         	Opposition  Opposition Opposition	Success  Success  Success
Here is another list:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.
 * = successful ouster of a government
China 1949, 1950s  
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 * (1)
Guatemala 1954 * (2)
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 * (3)
Iraq 1963 * (4)
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 * (5)
Laos 1958 *(6), 1959 *(7), 1960 * (8)
Ecuador 1960-63 * (9)
Congo 1960 * (10)
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 * (11)
Dominican Republic 1963 * (12)
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 * (13)
Indonesia 1965 * (14)
Ghana 1966 * (15)
Chile 1964-73 * (16)
Greece 1967 * (17)
Costa Rica 1970-71		Bolivia 1971 * (18)
Australia 1973-75 * (19)
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 * (20)
Jamaica 1976-80 * (21)
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 * (22)
Grenada 1983 * (23)
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 * (24)
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 * (25)
Panama 1989 * (26)
Bulgaria 1990 * (27)
Albania 1991 * (28)
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s * (29)
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * (30)
Ecuador 2000 * (31)
Afghanistan 2001 * (32)
Venezuela 2002 * (33)
Iraq 2003 * (34)
Haiti 2004 * (35)
--From: Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Chapter 15 of Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire by William Blum (Caveat: In my opinion from reading Blum, Blum is incredibly biased, at least two of the alleged US sponsored overthrows [maybe more]: Haiti and Venezuela are not confirmed 100% yet)
Nhprman wrote:
As for the 35 nation intervention article, it mischaracterizes the facts, somewhat. Nicaragua, Columbia, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia and (to a lesser degree, and so far, 7 years later) Kosovo, all ended up - or remained - democracies 10 years after interventions. So the article lies to make a point, which may or may not have some merit, by the way (you must assume I favor interventionism, just like you think I support a "Disneyland" view of history.) 
Please remember that the author has strick guidelines for what they characterize as democracy: 
#limits on executive power, 
#clear rules for the transition of power, 
#universal adult suffrage, and 
#competitive elections emerge within 10 years. 
*The author acknowleges that Colombia is a democracy, 10 years after. The author's argue this is the only democracy. 
*Kosovo/Bosnia may be another acception, but it has not been 10 years.
*I assume when you talk about Panama you are talking about the US invasion in 1989 (?) to overthrow our former puppet Noreaga.  In 1999, 10 years later, was Panama a democracy?  I don't know enough Panama right now to say.  Please do some research on this point and I will write the author and ask them why this is not included or why Grenada is not considered a democracy.
*Grenada.  I assume you are talking about the invasion during the Reagan administration when Reagan frightened the American population with an absurd claim that if Grenada became communist, then Soviet tanks are only a days ride to Texas.  What year was this? Please do some research on this point and I will write the author and ask them why this is not included or why Grenada is not considered a democracy.
Unfortunalty, the list that the authors rely on by Patrick Regan, one of the pages, the 1980's is blocked by Google Print and the entire section is not available on Amazon.  This just happens to cover the two conflicts that you mention: Grenada and Panama. I will attempt to get a hard copy of the book sometime in the future to complete this book.
Lets say though Nhprman, that you are correct, and that these professors are incorrect, and that instead of one conficts, there are actually three conflicts were invasion has been successful in installing a democratic regieme.  (Kosovo/Bosnia is still to early) 3 countries divided by 35 is better than 3% but it is still a dismal 8% success rate.  Even if you do include Kosovo/bosnia in three years (when the 10 years has run), 4 countries divided by 35 is 11.4% success rate.  That means that America has invaded 90% of the countries and been unsuccessful in installing democracies almost 90% of the time.  This is a pretty dismal record.
The record looks dismal unless you see American foriegn intervention as control and explotation of third world resources.  If a person looks at this record that way, American intervention is a smashing success.
In addition, the Bruce Bueno de Mesquita study does not discuss the dictatorships that America has actively supported since the end of WW2.  Bruce Bueno de Mesquita study also does not fully touch upon the democratically elected governments which America has overthrown, either overtly or covertly.
So go ahead and find me some research on  Panama and Grenada.  I will then study the information that you provide, and then ask the author via e-mail why these countries don't qualify or are not on the list.
I am glad that after 4 or 5 responses, we are finally discussing topics of substance.
---
#  INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY is a paper not avaiable on the internet which Mesquita e-mailed to me.  It is much more complex but much more detailed than the article Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work, and is the study which Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work was based upon. The INTERVENTION AND DEMOCRACY article is much broader than the Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work, and includes studies of the success rates of the UN, autocracies, and other democracies in interventing in other countries and installing democracies after intervention.  The study finds that the UN is the most successful of the four.
Signed: Travb 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 35 countries

message: User:Nhprman wrote: you must assume I favor interventionism
User:Nhprman, no i don't.
In my experience and in my readings, the vast majority of Americans support James W. Loewen's "disneyland version of history".  
Less Americans support interventionism.  In fact, America has had a strong history of support for isolationism by its popultation (but unfortunatly not by its leaders). For example, before both world wars America did not want to get involved with these wars, and there was a strong isolationist portion of America.  
Interesting, and I just thought of this, it seems, on its face, that post World War 2 Americans were much more willing to invade other countries.  Was it because of the propoganda which manfuactured fear was much more sophisticated then before World War 2?  I don't have the answer yet. 
So in conclusion, while the vast majority of Americans subscribe to a "disneyland version of history" much less Americans support  interventionism.
Signed: Travb 15:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you must assume I favor interventionism

message: Gsd2000  and Kalkin, I found an interesting article while I was studying the current Colombia situation for school. 
* by Doug Stokes
I wont go into details about it here and I have only read about 3 pages of the 15 pages thus far, but it seems very interesting, and something you may both enjoy. Stokes is the author of America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, with a review found here. Travb 03:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found an interesting article

message: Critics of the notion of 'American empire' believe its proponents are changing the meaning of the term 'empire'.  They claim proponents of an 'American empire' are begging the question by redefining '  empire' in terms of the politicized and derivative term, imperialism. Imperialism was intially coined in the mid to late 1800s to describe empire-like behavior.  At this time there were still empires present for comparison; an empire was an existant form of government with peculiar properties with which comparisons could be made.  As actual empires grow more scarce, the meanings of 'imperialism' have shifted and balkanized.
*The entire article quotes historians, politicians and scholars.  Your contributions quote no historians, politicians and scholars.   Saying "critics" is not enough, who said this?  What scholar said this?  Content must be verifiable. 
* If you want to explain why America is not an empire, use a scholar.  I took out the term "imperialist" as per above.Travb 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First: verifiable sources

message: I archived the discussian as per the discussion with Mrdthree.Travb 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I archived

message: ::Firstly, I'm not going to be negative towards your views or beliefs because it doesn't matter if your an anarchist frog worshipper as long as you make good factually based edits and are civil in conversation I think you're a wonderful wikipedian which what I think you are! You seem scared of condemnation from you're earlier If you think that I am a pinko-commie anti-American pig for thinking that America is an empire statement and your prediction of negative arguments against you, just relax, there's a few angry spiteful wikipedians out there but I'm not one of them, just make edits that are neutral and truthful and be friendly and I'll thank you for it and welcome your opinions.
:::I am used to condemnation from my more enlightened American brothern who are still true believers of Americanism, the religon which binds Americans together.Travb 04:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly please don't take this negatively but Military intervention might be a little strong for what happened exactly with the Panama canal situation, gunboat diplomacy or big stick diplomacy which is exactly what your article claims they did might be better. Panama proceeded to proclaim its independence on 3 November 1903, and the USS Nashville in local waters impeded any interference from Colombia (see gunboat diplomacy). and more specifically big stick diplomacy. Would it be alright with you if either gunboat diplomacy or big stick diplomacy is used? Either of those would be completely acceptable with me and I hopefully they meet your definition. If not please tell me as soon as possible and I'm sure we can quickly agree on a topic. - Patman2648 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a great diplomat.  As a result, your life on wikipedia is infinitly easier than mine often is.  "You get more bees with honey, not vinegar." Smart.  I am not sure what you are talking about.  Change what you would like.  No prob.  You seem pretty mellow and "play well with others", which is nice. I need to learn from you. Travb 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made one slight change that I talked about earlier changed "military intervention" to gunboat diplomacy, thank you for your approval. I'm really sorry that people are so intolerant of your views, I try to appreciate everybody's views so that I see the full spectrum of ideas and choose which one is best for me, marketplace of ideas, which what makes democracy and a free society so great is that people can choose their own beliefs from a wide variety and pick which one fits them best. I know that you're an intelligent and passionate person and should be treated that way not with condemnation and cries of heresy. The best words of advice that I can give you about wikipedia is to not edit pages that you feel too passionately about because then bias can come out and when someone edits your words then it'll angry you. Also if people are ignorant and uncivil towards you then try to be civil in return and if that doesn't work then don't talk to them, some people are real jerks and you just have to leave them alone because there are plenty of wonderful intelligent people out there like you. In the end I just want to say that I appreciate your kind words towards my character and am equally impressed by your great personality. Best of luck in the future and Cheers. - Patman2648 05:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thrive on controversy sometimes, see Talk:Cuba.  Best of luckTravb 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colombia and U.S.

message: "...and a subsequent article We have not lost the war in Iraq where he laments that "The Iraq War is now three years old, and only a paid administration apologist could claim that it has gone swimmingly well. The truth is that the war has cost more and lasted longer than its advocates had envisioned, and there is still no end in sight." Reverted:   Added:  
I personally think that Max Boot's current view on Iraq has really no place in the article.  I am indifferent to the whole debate, I simply want all major deletions to be recorded here. 
Signed:Travb (talk)   05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really considered a major deletion?  I suppose we could put the article being cited back in sans any editorial characterization of "lamenting", and maybe with a different quote that is more related to american empire (perhaps, "We can still triumph in Iraq if we have the patience to outlast the fanatical jihadists and cynical opportunists who want to drive us out.")...maybe the person who added it in the first place can better explain the relationship to American Empire? --JereKrischel 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob.  Anon probably wont come back anyway.Travb (talk)   08:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion