Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sept. 11: US Nice Guy says 'enough' (Long but VERY good read)
UPI ^ | 09/07/02 | Martin Walker

Posted on 09/07/2002 8:28:52 PM PDT by What Is Ain't

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: What Is Ain't; Gunslingr3
Very well-written and very true.
41 posted on 09/08/2002 11:21:34 AM PDT by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
This guy might have the right ideas, but his knowledge of history is shaky.

LOL.

Not nearly as shaky as some people's grasp of the concept of "empire".

42 posted on 09/08/2002 11:55:56 AM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
It would seem to me that the seldom used term "Protectorate" is best used...

Yes, you are correct.

Protectorate, in international law, a relationship in which one state surrenders part of its sovereignty to another. The subordinate state is called a protectorate. The term covers a great variety of relations, but typically the protected state gives up all or part of its control over foreign affairs while retaining a large measure of independence in internal matters. The relation may originate when the dominant power threatens or uses force or when the subordinate sees advantages (usually military protection) in the arrangement.

A protectorate is distinguishable from the relation of home country and colony, for the protected state retains its sovereignty (though often only nominally), its territory remains distinct from that of the protector, and its citizens do not become nationals of the protecting state. Initially, in most cases, the extent to which the dominant state may interfere in local affairs is governed by treaty; but since a protected state usually has no access to diplomatic channels, it is in a poor position to resist attempts at increased control.

Protectorates in connection with large empires probably have existed from earliest times, and there are known instances in Greek and Roman history. In World War I, Great Britain made Egypt a protectorate. Before the abrogation (1934) of the Platt Amendment, Cuba was essentially a protectorate of the United States.
InfoPlease

Semantics, perhaps but those that hate to see American troops in a country always deem them Colonial patsies there to enforce american rule, instead of defenders.

But we were there to enfore American rule.

Initially, American forces were greeted as liberators by Filipinos glad to be rid of Spanish occupation. Soon however, it became clear that many in the US did not see the Filipinos as being fit for self-rule. The comments of Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge reflected an opinion held by some in the US who believed that God "has made us the master organizers of the world...that we may administer...among savages and senile peoples."

Despite the vocal objections of those who deplored such imperialistic notions as running counter to the tenets of American democracy, President McKinley ended up siding with those who felt the Philippines were too strategically important to the US to be governed by the Filipino people. McKinley declared his intention to "educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them," and mobilized 20,000 US troops to get the job done.

What was predicted to be a quick and relatively bloodless pacification of a backward people quickly escalated into a prolonged war. Filipinos, led by Emiliano Aguinaldo, having declared themselves a sovereign republic in 1898, employed the tactics of guerrilla warfare that confounded the American forces. The US was finally able to defeat the Filipino forces in 1902. But it had required the efforts of 70,000 troops, over 5,000 of whom were killed. More than 8,000 Filipinos died in the conflict.
The American Experience


43 posted on 09/08/2002 2:11:49 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Not nearly as shaky as some people's grasp of the concept of "empire".

Here is the 'broad' definition from InfoPlease.

Imperialism, broadly, the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another.

44 posted on 09/08/2002 2:19:45 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LS
...and that there is no country in the history of the planet as benign and honorable as the U.S.

Thanks for doing that. We need more professors like you.

45 posted on 09/08/2002 2:21:54 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LS
You are exactly right. The Teller Amendment required us to GIVE UP Cuba within a few years---an unheard of move for traditional "empires."

Also true, though Cuba did not gain real independence until 1934, with the abrogation of the Platt Amendment. Until that time, it was clearly a protectorate.

The road to Cuban self-determination was prepared under United States guidance. In 1900 a new electoral law was passed that established a limited franchise for Cubans to elect officials at the municipal level. A constituent assembly convened and drafted a constitution that provided for universal suffrage, a directly elected president, a bicameral legislature, and the separation of church and state. The United States conditioned its approval of the constitution on the acceptance of a series of clauses that would preserve its upper hand in future dealings with "independent" Cuba.

These clauses, which were to be appended to the draft of the constitution, were prepared by United States secretary of war Elihu Root and attached to the arms appropriation bill of 1901; they became known as the Platt Amendment. It provided that Cuba should not sign any treaties that could impair its sovereignty or contract any debts that could not be repaid by normal revenues. In addition, Cuba had to accept the legitimacy of all acts of the military government, permit the United States to purchase or lease lands for coaling and naval stations, and give the United states special privileges to intervene at any time to preserve Cuban independence or to support a government capable of protecting life, property, and individual liberties.

The Platt Amendment represented a permanent restriction upon Cuban self-determination. Cuba's constituent assembly modified the terms of the amendment and presented it to the United States only to be turned down. The United States-imposed amendment was a tremendous humiliation to all Cubans, whose political life would be plagued by continual debates over the issue until its repeal in 1934. On June 12, 1901, Cuba ratified the amendment as a permanent addendum to the Cuban constitution of 1901 and the only alternative to permanent military occupation by the United States.
History of Cuba


46 posted on 09/08/2002 2:31:41 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: What Is Ain't
Good article. I think when the *XYZ hits the fan, which it will soon, the US will initially have two European allies: Britain and Spain. Others may fall in after that, but perhaps it's fitting that the two former international powers of Europe (and remember, the first city in the US was St. Augustine, established by the Spanish in 1565) should be with us at the start.

We are three countries (empires) that have a strangely interrelated but at the same time mutually hostile past. But I think the three of us may stand together at some point in the not too distant future.

Spain is probably going to be the first country on the Continent to be attacked by Islam. It's the nearest, and Morocco has already made a gesture (quickly rebuffed) in this direction.

Life is going to be very different in the future. Get out your atlases and study up on history.
47 posted on 09/08/2002 2:47:29 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
thanks, B4... screw the UN, screw NATO, let's let the euroweenies dangle for a while.

they might get over it after the abject terror of having to support themselves sinks in.

hell, maybe next we try the same tactic on saudi or egypt... home of the 911 pilots.

could a vacuum be worse than what we have?
48 posted on 09/08/2002 2:47:39 PM PDT by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
instead of defenders.

I should hasten to add that although the US fought long and hard to subdue the Philippines, it also fought longer and harder to defend and later liberate the nation from Japanese domination forty years later.

Though as Americans we certainly cherish the principle of democratic home rule, America's protectorate of the Philippines could not have been more benign.

49 posted on 09/08/2002 3:30:34 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: What Is Ain't
Martin Walker nails it better than anyone I've read. This is doubly amazing, if Martin Walker is the Martin Walker that I'm familiar with from The Michael (not the former pop-star) Jackson Program on KABC Talkradio in Los Angeles and various PBS talking head shows. That Martin Walker, British reporter, was a liberal, wimpy, clueless guy. This Martin Walker gets America right, very unusual for a Euro. Maybe the seriousness of the situation and the silliness of the Euroweenies has concentrated his mind.
50 posted on 09/08/2002 9:17:36 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
I know: I have a colleague who is a Cuban-American and whose research is in Cuba. Still, it was a remarkable step for ANY "empire" of ANY sort to voluntarily give up territory in ANY way.

Rome, Islam, the Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler, and the USSR never voluntarily gave up one inch of conquered land.

51 posted on 09/09/2002 3:33:37 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LS
...never voluntarily gave up one inch of conquered land.

Nor have we participated in the trading of possesions that various empires have engaged in. For instanc, many people are not aware that Florida was a British colony in 1776. It had been a Spanish colony and was traded or sold to Britain for twenty years, before Britain gave it back in exchange for something else.

52 posted on 09/09/2002 4:01:36 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson