Military Industrial Complex:

1. Eisenhower has seen the consequences of this intersection of military power and his own "new look" policy

Presidential speeches can be measured by how long we talk about them. Still one of the most referenced presidential speeches ever given.

IRAN — Mohammed Mossafegh (1951–1954)

• First military Coup during CIA golden age
• US tells Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1941–1979) that they will take over the country unless he overthrows Mossafegh.
• For 20+ years we supported a dictator who murdered his own people
• Any nation state has the option to buy out foreign companies

Guatemala — Jacobo Arbenz Guzman (1951–1954)

• Democratically elected leader, called for Progressive Reform (second President to do so)
• Nationalizing land (US decided it looked like Communism)
• Guzman runs into problems with the United Fruit Company, who had been cheating on their taxes, undervaluing their land prices. Government seeks to purchase land to nationalize it, and wants to buy it for the price that the UFC valued their land for.
• UFC and US Government set up a military Coup. Using radio broadcast propaganda, pretending that an army is ravaging the countryside. Guzman believes the propaganda and flees. We set up a dictator.

Early US Wars

1. Talking about these lands as depopulated — size comparisons downplay population
2. Uplifting Disney music. Contrasting the old with the "modern" new 3. Rural natives — "Cling to their primitive ways" within the "confines of their small world"
3. Audience: Americans, middle-class men 5. Primary consumers of videos like this: middle-class, business-men in the United States. Looking to invest in businesses in Central America. Sex tourism is also huge.
4. Gender — Showing a lot of women, exotic. Don't see men represented because your audience is male.

This document informs the way Americans have seen themselves since the beginning of the twentieth century.

Interventions are presented as idealistically noble and undeniably moralistic. Instead of recognizing the complexities and consequences of intervention, we continue to propagate intervention as an ideological imperative

We take on the domestic issues of other nations without being invited to take part. We identify as the prevailer of freedom and democracy when these are just ideals that we aspire to, sometimes missing the mark just as terribly as the nations we seek to guide and coerce.