U.S. Convoy Bombed In Gaza

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Let see, we discouraged Iranian generals from leading a coup that would have reversed the Iranian revolution.

While the Shah was in control, we did not concern ourself with the methods he used to maintain that control. When the half-assed coup talk came around, the issue in Iran was already decided - nothing a few generals would have done at that point would have made the slightest difference, except in the mind of Brzezinski, who was the big coup proponent.

We encouraged the fall of Marcos.

After decades of letting him run amok because he was our boy. Faced with a communist insurgency, ever increasing popular resentment, we asked him to go through the motions of an election. After murder of an extremely popular, non-threatening opponent, and after one of most blatant and extreme examples of electoral fraud in modern history, we bribed Marcos out (comfy exile, immunity) to get him to leave voluntarily, rather than see his ass thrown out and "God knows what, but they won't be friendly" eventually take his place - or the fractioning of the country into smaller units on ethnic and religious lines, with the ever-persistent commies still around.

We pushed the military rulers of Haiti out.

We supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc for decades, and once again, we only decided it was time for a change when their conduct had become so blatant and their opposition so strong that they would have ended up against a wall. Once again, our interest was in our strategic position, not a bunch of Haitian peasants.

We encouraged democratization in right wing regimes in south america.

And in most of Latinamerica, including here in Mexico, that "democratization" is a joke. The only reason the US "pushed" it (I wasn't aware gently asking was pushing ) was because it was costing us more to deal with commie insurgencies than we were benefitting from the Thugs-R-US(A) approach. So we just urged the real powers (i.e. the privileged economic ones) to change from military thugocracy to token corrupt democracy.

Well i suppose every instance where we've pushed for democratic change in a friendly regime can be explained away as somehow fitting other strategic interests of ours. And contrasted with some support we gave for a dictatorship somewhere.

Exactly. You can't claim a moral high ground and claim to support freedom and democracy, etc., unless you support those things instead of oppression that would be more favorable to you. The irony is that had the US been a little less into the Thugs-R-US(A) United Fruit Company model of doing things, Castro would probably have never come around, nor Allende (or Pinochet), nor the fiascos in El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, etc.

Im not going to defend all our cold war era behavior. Even post 9/11, when many of us who hadnt realized it before, came to see that we have a Strategic Interest in democratization, there are aspects of our behvior that can be criticized - for example our support for the government of Uzbekistan, and our "constructive engagement" with Saudi Arabia. But to say that "The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes." is just over the top rhetoric, that doesnt recognize the subtleties and tradeoffs in a dangerous world.

You're obviously confusing me with a bleeding heart. Let me rephrase then - the US gets concerned when the oppressive pro-US regimes are on the verge of losing control, and the alternatives are more adverse to perceived US interests.

As far as subtleties and trade-offs, I recognize them just fine. I don't have a particular problem with empire, just with empire that claims some unique moral superiority behind it's attempts to expand influence and control.

and the following "What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments." is wrong.

I am old enough to have lived through the contra controversy.

Then you should remember the North-Poindexter controversy was about separation of powers and whether the Executive and Legislative branches were subverting each other, and to whom ultimate policy control belonged when foreign policy was an executive preroragtive but funding a legislative one.

And most of the original debate on supporting the Contras, aside from widely ignored bleeding heart liberals in Congress, was over whether the Contras were effective and had enough support, not over the "freedom" of the Nicaraguan people. It was strictly a cold war calculation: Los hermanos Ortega = Castro's *****es, therefor the USSR's *****es. so what do we do about them?

When will Iran have congressional hearings digging into support govt support for Hezbollah? When will the parliament of Syria cut off funding for Hamas?

How those thugopolies conduct their policy isn't really relative to the moral syrup in which we package ours.

It also overlooks the changes in recent years. For example US aid to Columbia is conditional on cracking down on right wing paramilitaries, and the AUC is considered a terrorist group.

The AUC should be considered a terrorist group. Any right wing enforcers dumb enough to openly give their organization a name and try to exist out of the shadows of plausible deniability absolutely can't be trusted. And US aid is "conditional" (with very few real checks, mind you" because to not make a fuss out of it being "conditional" would be more adverse to US interests in the region, where people have long memories.

So MtG, what do you think? Do you think the people who blew up the convoy in Gaza are really concerned about Guatamalan death squads? Do you think they really want democracy in Palestine, and are offended that we dont support it? Do you think they want an end to Israeli occupation? Why then attack US officials who were there either to hand out scholarships, or to monitor the road map peace process - at the request of the Palestinian authority? How does that serve to end occupation?

I think they wanted to blow up American government representatives. The number of possible scenarios for who and why is pretty large, from diversion in Iraq, to opportunism, to undermining the PA in general, to Arafat undermining certain parties, and the list goes on and on.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Along the lines of 'we had to destroy the village in order to save it'- a good old tradition.

Just as much their tradition as it is any other people's throughout the history of conflict. It may be a cliche to say war is hell but it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

1. the PA is not sovereign. One of the reasons given for it not yet having sovereignty, is its alleged support for terrorism. Refusing a US request to allow FBI investigators would hardly endear the US toward the notion of Pal sovereignty

The PA is not a sovereign nation. And note I didn't talk about Palestinian sovereignty, let alone PA sovereignty. The point is the US' lack of sovereignty - we can go in there in one of three ways - by force, which tends to mess up crime scene investigations.

Or we can go in with the invitation of whichever party is internationally recognized as having jurisdiction.

Or we can go in with the invitation of whoever we deem it is convenient to consider has the authority to grant us that permission.

Unfortunately, somebody's got sovereignty over that piece of ground, and it ain't us.

2. Lets take PA sovereignty as given. Very well. Allow Arafat the sovereign right to deny the US access for investigation. The US may then conclude that Arafat supported the attack. Does his soverienty prevent us from assuming that? The US may then allow Israel the sovereign right to respond to attacks on its territory, and to apply the Bush doctrine to Palestine. The Europeans may even be convinced that Arafat is responsible, and cease diplomatic and financial support. If I were Arafat, I would take that seriously.

I'm not assuming that the PA is the sovereign authority. If I were Arafat, I'd argue in circles and try to delay and punt on the issue for long enough to make sure the crime scene was ****ed up. Unless I knew who did it, and I had a reason to want them to be fed to the US. Arafat may also be concerned with any apparent ass-kissing of US authority as undermining his hold on the PA and the Palestinians. There are lots of balls in play.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How do you leap to the conclusion that applies in this case?

See my answer to LotM above.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
**shrug** It seems Americans can't win when it comes to the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. The only consolation in that is that we wouldn't be the first to find that out the hard way.

Gatekeeper

There's a very ancient foreign policy principle at work here - never intervene in a civil war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Exactly. You can't claim a moral high ground and claim to support freedom and democracy, etc., unless you support those things instead of oppression that would be more favorable to you.

Well since i think suppoting oppression is never in our long term interest, I guess its logically impossible for me to ever claim the high ground.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


There's a very ancient foreign policy principle at work here - never intervene in a civil war.

I thought that was "never expect the Spanish Inquisition".

[Alexander's Horse]

The diplos killed were going to interview Palestinian scholarship applicants.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



I'm not assuming that the PA is the sovereign authority.

well i cant see israel telling us we cant send FBI in. and i cant see the UN doing so, or Jordan. So i dont really see anyone other than arafat who both can and would invoke sovereignty to keep the FBI out. [/QUOTE]

If I were Arafat, I'd argue in circles and try to delay and punt on the issue for long enough to make sure the crime scene was ****ed up. Unless I knew who did it, and I had a reason to want them to be fed to the US. Arafat may also be concerned with any apparent ass-kissing of US authority as undermining his hold on the PA and the Palestinians. There are lots of balls in play.

Ok, if youre arafat you argue in circles and try to punt till the scene is messed up. Fine. And everyone on gods green earth is going to know that whoever did it is someone youre trying to protect. Now most of the muslim world and half of europe and 20% of the US is going to say just fine. But 80% of the US, and 95% of Congress, and 100% of the administration and probably 50% of europe (higher in UK and Germany, lower in France) will all decide its time to wash their hands of you. Israel gets a free hand. I dont think this is a wise strategic move.

Nah, if you had any hand in it, youd better have your tracks covered ALREADY, so you can invite the FBI in right away. And if any people (like say Hamas) who I dont want the US to blame, but i dont absolutely control did it, i need to face the fact that my particular game with them is up.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I seem to recall the founding fathers of the United States were called terrorists. The Brits would have hanged them had they caught them.

doesn't mean the other person is right.

[Alexander's Horse]

no it doesn't. That's why when my boys fight I punish both of them

[Edan]

From the Jerusalem Post:

The Islamic Jihad and Hamas were quick to disassociate themselves from the attack and claimed they were not involved. The Palestinian Resistance Committee in Gaza, an umbrella group comprised of all the Palestinian opposition groups later claimed responsibility for the attack.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Unfortunately, somebody's got sovereignty over that piece of ground, and it ain't us.

Who would you say hold sovereignty over the patch of sand then?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
no it doesn't. That's why when my boys fight I punish both of them

yes we should all be taught that disagreement is wrong and the highly saught after morality of no-fault!

ur children will rule.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Well since i think suppoting oppression is never in our long term interest, I guess its logically impossible for me to ever claim the high ground.

You may be an idealist, but the policymakers of the US historically haven't been. It's their actions, not your ideals, which have the problem claiming the high ground.

I don't have a problem with empire - someone has to run things, but an empire that maintains it's influence through oppressive proxies is bound to eventually lose it.