And your point is:

Developed countries shouldn't lend money to developing countries?

Developed countries should give their money to developing countries?

OPEC countries should pay off this debt?

Developed countries should "forgive" (god , how I love that thought) the debt.

America shouldn't deficit spend trillion a year?

The Community Reinvestment Act (euphemism of euphemisms) should be expunged from the books since money should never be lent to those with questionable abilities to repay?

World Bank and IMF make jack**** for their size.

That their loans often are made at below market rates to countries that can't get assistance otherwise should be a tip off.

Yes, World Bank and IMF are instruments "The West" (in particularly US) wield to exert influence on rest of the world. But, on balance, they are subsidy distributors, not rent collectors.

that was the craziest skirmish the world got to see unfold. The navy & air force bombing runs were the spectacle, Schwartzkopf's pressers about the ground forces were impressive, at first. Then it was just a rehash of tanks advance letting the RG retreat. Without the fires, it was pretty boring stuff. Bush never had a mandate to take Baghdad, but it would have been easy.......................or does later history show it would have made Vietnam look like a cotillion.

Bush 41 had > 5* times the manpower than 43 to control the country had he decided to. But, since America isn't an empire by most reasonable definitions, 41 rightly chose not to. 41's mandate was to expel Iraq from Kuwait which he did nicely while degrading Saddam's military at the same time. Well played, 41.


*U.S. troops represented 73% of the coalition’s 956,600 troops in Iraq. (Wiki)

How many everyday Egyptians have to clog the streets in revolution before you believe it is people and not your dreaded terrorists? Do you agree that we go to great lengths to stop the fall of our dictator allies?

I'm sure women who walk around without scarves on feel quite differently about the topic. It is estimated that the house of Saud is worth $1.4T. The median income in Saudi Arabia is approx $20k/year, so I think its fair to say the royalty take home the lion share of the profits.

Dictator vs democracy, the dictator will be cheaper. Therefore, freedom bad, exporting freedom good. Just don't finish the job because it is going to cost too much money to move the fleet back to the States.

Yeah, we fight oil wars for the benefit of the masses! The oil companies don't even pay any taxes when it's all done either.

I made the same point when I wrote "The US does not try to run it."

Re: controling Afghan pipeline to India as a US motive:
Certainly Osama was the reason for the invasion in October 2001. But why are we still there 11 years later when months go by without an engagement with al Qaida? Why are we now at war with Afghanistan? That takes explanation, and the pipeline is reasonable speculation and was presented as such. Your response was to go all Fox. I'm not offering a guess as to how significant the India pipeline is. That probably won't be known until the archives open up in 30 years. Certainly controlling gas lines to India would be seen as an advantage. You saying you wouldn't take your opportunities?

I made a similar point when I wrote "They were happy to be rebuilt and modernized."

The fact that many local elements willingly join the US project does not change the fact Washington holds immense power at the head of a military-petro complex.

The point you decline to absorb is this: " Sometimes the term "neo-colonial" is used to describe working through local elites, rather than occupying a territory."

The U.S. hasn't needed to. That's power. What do you think the bases ringing oil in ME, Africa, Colombia are for? They are at incredible cost.

That would be direct empire, the kind the US isn't, and another tendentious analogy. Compare British direct administration in a few countries to holding the key to the economies of vast regions.

Your arguments were very sloppy.

My point is that you don't have 36% of your budget paying for the budgeted 4% of social services. A more likely hypothetical is that 36% goes to pay for interest on guns bought by a dictator from the USA in order to impose a draconian dictatorship on a 3rd world country.

How about we get a loan together, a great loan with -2% interest. I will spend the money and the bill goes to your house. Deal?

If you want to know what America is up to check out the military "aid". Here's 2010.


Afghanistan 6,800.3
Israel 2,799.5
Egypt 1,301.9
Iraq 1,006.0
Pakistan 913.9
Jordan 303.8
Somalia 204.0
Colombia 185.8
Russia 126.8
Sudan 104.9
Mexico 96.0
Poland 55.6

figures are in millions

You would have to ask Mr Obama about the last 4, but I really don't think it is because of some imaginary pipeline.


I'm sorry, I just don't see France, England, Germany, Italy, et al as some sort of willingly complicit vassal states in an Amerikan empire. Not doubt America has immense military power, but just because Europe accepted modern technology via the Marshal Plan, they aren't complicit fools in the Amerikan petro-cabal. That's a bigger reach than bastardizing the word empire to include a country with almost no possessions, neo-colonial or not.

"People" can use the term empire or colonial any way they choose. It doesn't make it correct in the context of the commonly understood definition of the word.



In your opinion, which has been duly noted.

So who is at fault? If the 3rd world country buys guns from China, Russia or N. Korea, is that better?

I honestly don't get your point. You give figures and then segue into hypotheticals. Just say what you mean.

Don't forget we opted to do basically nothing when middle east and Venezuela decided to nationalize American assets.

I can't really imagine the British Empire not enforcing its property rights (see Doctrine of Lapse).

Come to think of it, I don't really want to find out what the Chinese (and, to lesser extent, Indians) would do if African countries were to nationalize their assets.

You just can't stop misstating the argument. You are debating with yourself, your own uninformed claim of what neocolonialism is.

Using "empire" in the neocolonial sense is very common, you just don't know. The point of repeating that quote, the italic part, was that neocolonial empires are altogether different and saying the US is not like Britain answers nothing.

Hi Bill,

With all due respect, I hardly misstated the argument.This is precisely what you wrote in post # 62:

You wrote France and the rest of Western Europe were happy to be rebuilt through the Marshall plan and the conversion from coal to oil was knowingly part of that.

I answered by writing(my complete quote):

My point being, the switch form coal to oil was a natural part of the modernization of the rebuilding of Europe. It would have been silly to rebuild in the mid 20th century using 18th century technology.

You seem to believe the switch form coal to oil was part of an Amerikan neo-colonial petro-empire scheme to get the poor Europeans crack addicted to oil rather than the logical flow of modernity.

I mean were we supposed to rebuild Europe in the post war period to burn coal or peat? C'mon, Bill! But it was actually an evil plot?

That's just pure nonsense, IMO.

I described nothing like "vassal states." I wrote they are "tied into" Washington's energy system. Do you think they are not? What are NATO nations doing in the various US-led wars?

I rather carefully described it as something else. You keep reacting to your summations of my arguments, not what I say.

Empire is not a scheme. It is the logical flow of modernity.

You have no explanation for the US spending nearly half the world's arms budget, no idea what we're doing out there. Why is the US securing oil that goes to other countries? We do all that for the 10% of our oil that comes from ME? What interests do we have in Nigeria if not oil? What's the military doing in Africa? What are the Neocons protecting when they call for "full spectrum dominance?" Your remark about asking Obama about Afghanistan shows you aren't even curious. All you know is, mustn't say 'merica bad.

What would be compatible with your instincts, but still respectful of facts, is to take the Niall Ferguson position: of course it's an empire, and that's good, and hopefully it lasts longer than the Anglo empire.

I am saying we give the guns to them on loan then complain about what idiots the citizenry are for not opposing a dictatorship we imposed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! USAUSAUSA