'The old imperialism-exploitation of raw materials and of colonies has been replaced by a new kind of imperialism: the pentagonist mother country exploits her own people in order to insure the aims of an economy permanently geared to war. The people are exploited as a source of labor and of taxes, which in turn assure that men and war material will be wasted in an endless cycle which profits only the military-industrial-complex.[b] Dr. Bosch ruthlessly examines the United States policy in Vietnam, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic; he discusses pentagonism's methods of justifying its actions to the American people; and he documents the takeover of American industry by military iterests.'

.... This essay attempts to bridge this analytical gap by presenting a systemic, historical and structural model for policy analysis, looking at policy-making and coalition building in the hemisphere (the Americas) as a whole. It examines transnational alliances and conflict-management modes around two fundamental policy options, ‘Pentagonism’ and ‘Trilateralism’ and the effects on inter- and intra-coalition conflict for the region.

Conclusions

At present (2005), the consolidation, and continuity, of an administration in Washington intent on confrontation, and in extending the unilateral policies used in the inter-American system to the whole world offers a troubling scenario now and in the future. This development has the potential for increasing,
not decreasing, mutual vulnerability (Nef, 2001) in the region, and in the last analysis threatens the real security of the American people. An analysis of current trends offers no visible signs to indicate any significant departure from these entrenched practices.

According to many, the massive starvation going on in Somalia was one of those horrific occasions where intervention was justified, and the dispatch of the U.S. Marines was a welcome and necessary means for saving large numbers of lives...

In June 1977 ... When the Somalia invasion became evident to the outside world in August, the Carter administration decided that it would not provide arms to Mogadishu as long as Somali troops were in Ethiopia. Washington declared an arms embargo on both sides, but still maneuvered for advantage on the Horn. On the one hand, U.S. officials, like Moscow, still considered Ethiopia the more valuable catch. So while they denounced the Kremlin for arming Ethiopia, they were silent about Israeli arms support for Addis Ababa and indeed about U.S. deliveries of 23 trucks and $400,000 worth of nonlethal military spare parts to Ethiopia. On the other hand, Washington refused to publicly condemn the Somali invasion of the Ogaden and winked when Saudi Arabia, Iran (under the Shah), Egypt, and Pakistan transferred weapons of non-U.S. origin to Somalia...

Between fiscal 1980 and 1989, the United States provided Somalia with military aid worth $390 million (grant aid, credit sales, military training, and security related "Economic Support Funds") plus more than $200 million in cash sales, for a total of $600 million. In an impoverished country of about 6 million people, this comes to about $100 per person in military aid and sales for the decade. In sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia was the fourth highest recipient of U.S. military assistance funds for the years 1980-1985 and was first in 1986. Other U.S. allies, particularly Italy, provided Somalia with even larger supplies of weapons, and Saudi Arabia was a leading source of funds.<12>

Beginning in 1980, U.S. military personnel were sent to Somalia as part of an annual regional military exercise, "Operation Bright Star." In 1983, there were 40 U.S. military advisers in the country, and from 1980 to 1989 some 350 Somali military officers received U.S. military training.<13>

In good times in Somalia, more than a fifth of the country's children died before they reached age five, 12 percent of the population was literate (the lowest rate in the world), and per capita income was under $300 a year. In the face of these abysmal conditions, Barre was spending about a fifth of his country's total government expenditures on the military.<14> And supporting him in this criminal undertaking was the United States. {SHOCK AND AWE, BABY ! - Razin}

1993 ...

In general, U.S. officials reported that violence increased in regions where there was no foreign military presence. And in many areas where food was delivered, as soon as the troops left rioting or looting took place... {same old song - Vietnam in 70s, now Lebanon ... - Razin}

The main argument on behalf of the U.S. intervention was that conditions were too dangerous for the agencies providing food. But in fact, in the first three months of Operation Restore Hope three foreign relief workers were killed compared to two in the previous two years...

As U.S. troops arrived in the famine zone, they found that the worst of the starvation was over. According to the _New York Times_, "it has become clear that because so many of the hungry died before the foreign forces arrived, emergency food is perhaps a less critical issue than was originally outlined... The crucial question, then, is whether political reconciliation has been facilitated or hindered by the massive U.S. military presence...

U.S. troops brought with them much ignorance of Somali society ... But much more serious has been the attitude toward the warlords. On the one hand, the United States and the United Nations have lavished too much attention on them, ... On the other hand, Washington has demonized Aidid, placing a reward on his head, and killing hundreds of civilians in its fruitless effort to capture him. The tragedy of this, of course, is that Aidid is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths by famine and civil war and now he is a hero. Not that the other warlords whom the United States and UN favored<114> while going after Aidid were any better ... The costs of trying to get Aidid have been enormous. Despite UN cover-ups,<118> hundreds of Somali civilians have been killed ...

U.S. casualties quickly revealed how superficial the humanitarian concern for Somalis was. "There are a lot of Somalis who deserve to be simply killed," a senior U.S. officer said in Mogadishu, and a reporter noted that the sentiment was widely shared among the soldiers.<125> Polls showed that half the American public favored withdrawal, even if another famine were to result. "It's really very simple," said one citizen. "If I have to choose between pictures of starving Somalian babies or dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, well, I don't want to see any more dead Americans. Sorry."<126>

{THANK YOU, compassionate American soldiers AND even citizens for saving poor starving Somalian babes ! here, I've done it, KenBen ! - Razin}

The United States was thus going to follow one of its two basic policies toward Africans: either dominate them or let them starve. There was, however, an alternative to both of these racist policies. Even in December 1992 it would have made sense to bring back UN special representative Mohammed Sahnoun or someone using his approach... But this was a far cry from the massive U.S. troop presence. Where patient negotiation with Somalis was called for, Washington sent in the Marines...

As things developed, the Pentagon did not get the boost it wanted from the Somalia operation. If anything, the experience has made future interventions more difficult rather than less so. (Indeed, some Republicans who opposed Restore Hope back in December 1992 worried that it might drain the Pentagon's resources and erode its willingness to intervene in more important places.<127>) On the other hand, it has made the penchant for U.S. unilateralism greater than ever. Secretary of State Warren Christopher concluded that multilateralism "is warranted only when it serves the central purpose of American foreign policy, to protect American interests," while columnist William Safire wrote that the lesson of Somalia was: "Do not put U.S. troops under UN control anytime, anyplace."<128>

But the real lesson of Operation Restore Hope was provided by Kevin M. Cahill, an American doctor with thirty years' experience in Somalia. Writing in early 1993, Cahill warned that ... the vast scope of military action adversely alters the critical relationship between donor and recipient, drains the finite resources available, and imposes a transient mirage of well-being that simply cannot be sustained.<129>

The end of the Cold War has generated tremendous domestic pressures on the Pentagon budget. Cutting the gargantuan military establishment could provide a ready source of funds to meet the needs of the country's long-neglected education and health care system, its economy, and its infrastructure. But deep cuts in the military budget are anathema to the Pentagon and its contractors. "Much of this new readiness to enforce law or establish order," conservative _New York Times_ columnist William Safire has noted, "may be to justify the continuance of big budgets."<68>

Can't find a single supported assertion there.

Of course, the UN Security Council did accept Washington's demands, but it really had little choice. Ideally, the UN should have a standing force that it could deploy when necessary without having to get the approval of any country. (This would entail eliminating the veto power as well.)

hmmm ....

do all memmbers of this Forum post articles with THE ONLY intention to debate them ? or is that an absolute MUST condition for posting articles ?

I didn't say I don't want to debate it. I merely tried to point out that - this nothing nothing of sort of my own invention or that I've made it up myself OR any kind of "conspiracy theory". rather it is one subject taught in Political Science of one of the US State Universities by recognized American scholar.

because you sound like you are trying to blame ME for whatever is said in there.

and sorry to admit - as long as you do so - it is quite hard to debate anything !

fo-rum 
–noun
1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2. a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest. (emphasis added by post author)

source: dictionary.com

Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board on the Internet. Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait.... A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished by its intent. A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject. Finally, some consider flaming to be a great way to let off steam, though the receiving party may be less than pleased.

a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets

ha !

dude, I've been debating here on this Forum long before you happend to be around. your lecturing me on WHAT IS Forum is just plain funny - of same category as "egg theaches hen" or even "sonny teaches dad how to fcuk" !

I might though teach you a bit or two about WHAT Forum is, and what it ISN'T or what or DOs and DONTs in Forum...

...so, dude - you are a perfect example of flaming TROLL - and I saw many such here been banned sooner or later ! keep it up - and you'll soon be banned too !

ig-no-rant 
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

as for your flaming insult itself , "spineless, cowardly puke" - FIRST I bet that would be YOU, a sort of real coward who is "brave" only in his impersonal on-line status. IF though met in person - won't even dare to repeat same flaming stuff they talk out loud in Forums - because they know that it well get their A$$ KICKED HARD ! wanna try to tell this to my face, you DIKKHEAD ? why don't you - if you are SO BRAVEHEART and I'm SO "spineless, cowardly puke" huh ? SECOND another typical quality of coward is - to commit "attack on person" - as irresponsible switching of topic, instead of address his POINT !

if you are so ready and eager to debate - why I can't see your ANY SINGLE argument put forrward...

one last thing though : yes, that's realy great idea - to put me on your ignore list ! so PLEEEEEEASE do us all a favor - do so and let remaining people who might be interested to discuss the SUBJECT of this thread, not waste time on insults exchange with you, to be able to do that.

yet it looks like you are rather trying to follow me around in many threads, doing the same thing - FLAMING. and somehow it looks like you ONLY activity on this Forum - many others complain about you.

I request Mods - BTW, Ben_T is one of them ! - to restrain this jumpy upstart and remind him about Forum rules !