20th November 2007, 8:42 PM
Public land, ASM, public land. That's why land reform in the USA would have been ridiculous; there was plenty of undeveloped land for anyone who wanted it. Land reform is redistribution of privately-owned land. Redistribution of private property, what does that remind you of? That US interests were involved helps, but history shows that the USA didn't mind getting their hands dirty even where they had little or no direct commercial interest (Nicaragua, Grenada...). Ergo, ideology supersedes direct financial interests, at least in the case of the Cold War.
Regardless, I've been arguing from a realist standpoint, and from a realist standpoint there isn't really anything wrong either with defending your country's commercial interests, so the point is moot. You can very well adopt a liberal point of view and argue that the USA should support democracy and national self-determination at all costs. That's not my problem with your presentation; my problem is that you suggest that we are victims of propaganda, and are therefore unable to properly debate the issue. This is patently false, and, as you have demonstrated, the information is widely available for anyone to consult; and anyone so inclined will be able to come to his or her own conclusions concerning US foreign policy, past, present and future. It is spurious to claim that information is being modified or withheld from anyone; the truth is that most people are simply not interested in debating the merits of Wilsonianism, realpolitik, and so forth. You basically say "if only people knew about this..." but the truth is that if you show people only the good, they'll see things one way; if you show people only the bad, they'll see things another way; if you show them both, then they'll be able to compare the bad and the good, but few people have the inclination to do this, and those who do - experts - don't come to an obvious conclusion. They study the possibilities, and by doing so continually improve their field of study.
Regardless, I've been arguing from a realist standpoint, and from a realist standpoint there isn't really anything wrong either with defending your country's commercial interests, so the point is moot. You can very well adopt a liberal point of view and argue that the USA should support democracy and national self-determination at all costs. That's not my problem with your presentation; my problem is that you suggest that we are victims of propaganda, and are therefore unable to properly debate the issue. This is patently false, and, as you have demonstrated, the information is widely available for anyone to consult; and anyone so inclined will be able to come to his or her own conclusions concerning US foreign policy, past, present and future. It is spurious to claim that information is being modified or withheld from anyone; the truth is that most people are simply not interested in debating the merits of Wilsonianism, realpolitik, and so forth. You basically say "if only people knew about this..." but the truth is that if you show people only the good, they'll see things one way; if you show people only the bad, they'll see things another way; if you show them both, then they'll be able to compare the bad and the good, but few people have the inclination to do this, and those who do - experts - don't come to an obvious conclusion. They study the possibilities, and by doing so continually improve their field of study.