ah, my bad. THis is what I get for doing too many things at once.
I was basing what I
>wrote on news reports and various commissions that reported on the
>aftermath. I was in the military about 12 years earlier, leaving the CAF in
>1982. I don't know what the number of Somali casualties were. I don't think
>anyone did. The problem is that not only did you have those being killed by
>the chaos and the civil war, but you also had an ongoing famine, and
>deliberate massacres by Aideed and other warlords.
I have since done a quick check and I don't know where he is getting the number either. It sure doesn't seem to be a generally accepted fact.
>view. If anything I think the US was more likely to engage in cultural and
>economic imperialism far more than actual imperialistic conquest.
yes, but they often overlapped. In 1954, the CIa overthrew the government of Guatemala, because it was nationalizing land belonging to the United Fruit Company. That's an established fact.
On the web
>page you site, most of those writings on the US were before 1930.
true, but it's for a history class :) I was under the impression that you were objecting to the term "imperialist" and was attempting to demonstrate that it had legitimate uses.
>By and large, the US, with a few notable exceptions, did not engage in the
>deliberate acts of terrorism that the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge
>systematically engaged in.
Maybe. I still don't think the local population thought of it in those terms.
>More recently however there has been a significant humanitarian component >to the US>becoming involved in local or regional conflicts, when this >country finally
>gets off its butt and acts.
has there?
Dana
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
