Good Article on Fiji Water Greenwash

[Montag]

I've heard many statements to that effect regarding many situations. If America's influence is *that* great, then I'm left to wonder why our foreign policy initiaitives don't succeed more often.

Hmmm... You have posed an interesting question. Does American foreign policy have more success than failure? I'm not sure of the last war that we've had where we unequivocally won, but I think it's more important to the PTB just that we have theses wars (not whether or not we "win" them). I'd say there are oligarchs, plutocrats and kleptocrats in power in probably the majority (of non-Western European, North American plus Japan) countries in the world, so I'd have to say whatever have been our failures, that U.S. foreign policy has been a net success in general (as per the people who are making it, not for the human species as a whole).

[Sepka]

Hmmm... You have posed an interesting question. Does American foreign policy have more success than failure? I'm not sure of the last war that we've had where we unequivocally won, but I think it's more important to the PTB just that we have theses wars (not whether or not we "win" them). I'd say there are oligarchs, plutocrats and kleptocrats in power in probably the majority (of non-Western European, North American plus Japan) countries in the world, so I'd have to say whatever have been our failures, that U.S. foreign policy has been a net success in general (as per the people who are making it, not for the human species as a whole).

Are you alleging then that American policies are determined from behind the scenes by a shadowy 'PTB', rather than by our elected representatives? If one believes that, then what point is there to political activism or discussion?

[Montag]

Are you alleging then that American policies are determined from behind the scenes by a shadowy 'PTB', rather than by our elected representatives? If one believes that, then what point is there to political activism or discussion?

PTB doesn't necessarily have that connotation (of a secret or shadow government or some such). I used to think that too, and shied away from the term unless that's what I meant (shadow government, etc.). The only reputable dictionary I can find a definition of online is Cambridge, it says:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... rs-that-be

the powers that be -
important people who have authority over others

Other sources seem to agree, let me know if you take issue with that.

I wasn't even getting into whether "our representatives" are puppets or actually make the policy or whatever... I was saying the goal is to put people into power in "subaltern" countries that will not represent their people. To put in people that keep wealth and resources to the limited few in their countries, and also openly want to sell at a reasonable price (as determined by us and other first world countries) their resources or cash crops or serving whatever function they have been serving to wealthier nations (probably for most of their history, in the case of many "developing" countries).

[Simulist]

Hmmm... You have posed an interesting question. Does American foreign policy have more success than failure? I'm not sure of the last war that we've had where we unequivocally won, but I think it's more important to the PTB just that we have theses wars (not whether or not we "win" them). I'd say there are oligarchs, plutocrats and kleptocrats in power in probably the majority (of non-Western European, North American plus Japan) countries in the world, so I'd have to say whatever have been our failures, that U.S. foreign policy has been a net success in general (as per the people who are making it, not for the human species as a whole).

Are you alleging then that American policies are determined from behind the scenes by a shadowy 'PTB', rather than by our elected representatives? If one believes that, then what point is there to political activism or discussion?

I can't speak for Montag (nor would I presume to try), but I will say this straight out: "American policies are determined from behind the scenes" by a bunch of rich fuckers who BUY "our elected representatives."

And if you can't see that, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Montag]

Naomi Klein used an excellent term in The Shock Doctrine, voodoo politics. Sometimes even when the candidates we don't like win, we (U.S. government) can still get the policies that we like. I can't remember exactly when (or who the presidents were), but I recall her talking about Bolivia and Sri Lanka. Cases where two politicians ran wholeheartedly against neoliberalism/free market reforms and then a lot of pressure was brought to bear on them to implement such policies after their elections -- which both eventually ceded to -- thus essentially annulling the elections. I'm not well versed on the particulars of what is done to these people, but if you think the United States wasn't involved in such things, then I've got a bridge to sell you.