Is the US a warlike country?

[GePap]

Originally posted by ravagon
Tell that to the Mujahadeen

The US and the Soviets vied for power all throught the 50-'s and 60's. The Soviet finally got the upper hand in the olate 70's, but even that fell apart and they had ot invade.

They most certainly did not. The Tudeh (sp?) were active right up until the overthrow of the Shah and the religious fervor that followed.
They're survived as an armed group today iirc.

Oh, for God's sake. Man, are you living in 1951? The tudeh was minor and irrelevant to Iran's history-tell me one thing the Tudeh actually did that destabalized Iran!? Oh, my God, there was a pro-soviet paerty in Iran! Perish the idea! Whom did the Tudeh overthrow? How many POM's, or monarchs?

Keeping Egypt?
So when and how exactly did they go from not having Egypt to having and keeping Egypt?

Cause we turned down a loan for Nasser, thats how. Most states that ended up in the Soviet sphere were states the west rejected for some reaosn or another.

Egypt is the major power in the middle East - population, resources ... it was only US support for Israel that kept the ME from unravelling completely.

Also Syria (client state), Libya (ditto iirc), South Yemen plus a multitude of insurgent groups backed throughout the region.

As opposed to Jordan, client state, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, KSA, Baharain, Iran until 1979-hmm, which list is bigger?

I think your definition of 'involved' leaves something to be desired.
Nigeria, Angola, Namibia, the ANC - all Soviet backed. All became Sov clients.

NIgeria? What have you been smoking?? Namibia was controlled by South Africa, fought over by SA and the new Angolan revolutionary regime

Post WW2 they became the aggressor. Backed, of course, by the SU

The aggressors? Maybe if the 1956 elections had been held as ordered. The Amount of soviet aid to N Vietnam was much smaller than the amount of US aid to South Vietnam (specially since the USSR did not pump in 500,000 men)

The US, again, was reacting.

The US was pumping money into Indochina before France left, and long before the Soviets got involved at all.

As per above I think your definition of 'indigenous' leaves something to be desired. You don't really believe that all of these came about of their own accord do you?
The SU was far more adept at political chicanery than most give it credit for.

Actually, obviously knowing far more about the history of Cuba and NIcaragua than you, yes, these were internally driven revolutions against innept and corrupt regimes.

[Edit2: Actually, following Mr Yeltsin's revelations in the mid-90's about Sov support for Western leftist groups (Anti-nuclear in particular) I could add much of Western Europe/CONUS to the list. Assuming, of course, that Boris hadn't had too much to drink that day]

Oh, MY GOD! Support! Are you talking about money and well wishes? You know what? We gave "support" to Yushenko supporters in the Ukraine-are Serbs claims the US engineered the situation true then!?

Sorry, but the comparisons you are trying to make verge on the absurd. From the small stuff to the large the Soviets never could hold a candle to what the US could do-it wasn't the Soviet block beaming radio broadcasts worldwide with its message that "free" countries had to try to block....

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh

Suharto could have said no? That's your answer?

Yes. Do you tghink it false? Do you think he or his fellow Indonesians were incapable of saying "nah, this is a legitimate reigme, we won;t go aorund killing our own countrymen"?

There will always be guys like Suharto, especially in third world armies trained by the US. Who finds guys like Suharto or Pinochet? Who contacts them and suggests overthrowing the government?

You think we had to "suggest" the idea? What, are third world people so inept and stupid they can;t even conduct a coup without the white man holding their hands?

Who trains them and gives them money and sophisticated assistance? Who gives them arms and intelligence? Three guesses.

And for all of that, it is still up to these men to say yes, or no. And to decide how they will use what they were given.

What is the principle you base your arguments on? Mine is clear: One country shouldn't invade, destablize or overthrow the legitimate government of another country simply because it disagrees with it's political and economic policies. And that it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to actively oppose such actions by their government.

A fine fantasy. Except of course you drive into the problem of : 1, arguements about what constitutes legitimate, 2. Where does said "duty" come from? Democracy just means rule of the many. If the mob wants to invade X state, thats a dmeocratic solution.

You on the other hand, justify some invasions and reject others, blame neo-cons for everything bad the US does, while overlooking the bad stuff done under liberal regimes, and blame CIA-engineered coups on third world generals who couldn't shoot straight without instructions from Langley.

Its nice to know myself and all my third world breatheren are incompetent, backward, savage, stupid people unable to have independent thoughts or dreams without big uncle sam there to guide us. Makes you wonder how these incopetents were ever able to carry out a coup without US backing- obviously the brown people are too stupid to do so

You probably did, but how would you know? And who cares? The political problem here is the same problem the US has. There is no real left, at least as far as I can see.

If real left means ignoring reality for doctrine, well, so be it.

Whereas in Canada, Australia and Europe there is a real democratic left, there is none in the US. Liberals, considered in other countries as centre or even right of centre, pass for the left in the US. And that's why there is no consistent, principled alternative to Bush and the policy of invasion and regime change.

We live in a world of 6 billion people, as much as America is both hated and loved, know that the people of the world certainly do not share one bvit of your "let's" vision outside of those few places you named- so as power shifts from the west in the years to come, what will happen to your mode of thinking? The picture is not good.

[techumseh]

GePap-

You can try to paint as paternalistic or even racist anyone who argues that these coups are planned and organized by the CIA, but it's a desperate ploy. Check out some of the links on Indonesia or Chile that I posted earlier, and/or find some of your own.

The coordination of economic pressure, sanctions, aid reductions, media manipulations, psychological warfare, phoney strikes, assasinations and terrorist attacks leading up to a coup is very sophisticated. They are beyond the capabilities of the elites and/or military of these countries. Hell, they're beyond the capacity of most industrialized countries.

You seek to absolve the US of responsibility for overthrowing the governments of dozens of countries by pointing to the obvious fact that they have local collaborators. I find it most unconvincing.

You also use your timeworn method of hair splitting to try and dismiss the principles which I clearly laid out as the basis for my argument. Let's drop the term "legitimate", for the sake of argument. Do you agree with these principles, or not? If not, what are yours? Surely it's more than just "seeing the world in shades of grey"? And do you really believe that citizens in a democracy have no duties or responsibilities?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ravagon
During the cold war the USSR was an intrinsically hostile power far more adept at political, economic and military subversion. US agencies were playing catchup and reacting throughout.

BS!

The US intervened in seven times the countries the USSR did from 1945 on. As of yet, no insurgency can be claimed to have been started by the USSR, although they did aid several that had already shown themselves capable of being more than bandits and the Soviets did, unusually, try and foment one in Pinocet's Chile. The number of coups that can be laid at the Soviet's feet are maybe two: Afganistan and Grenada.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

Oh, for God's sake. Man, are you living in 1951? The tudeh was minor and irrelevant to Iran's history-tell me one thing the Tudeh actually did that destabalized Iran!? Oh, my God, there was a pro-soviet paerty in Iran! Perish the idea! Whom did the Tudeh overthrow? How many POM's, or monarchs?

They were neither minor nor irrelevant. The Shah's lot hit first and hurt them. Otherwise they could've been in the driving seat in the late 70's.
And what exactly do you not understand about the presense of armed militia's several thousand strong, destabilization and fifth columns?
They were readied several times during the 80's when tensions between the USSR and Iran heated up.

If I'm the living incarnate of Senator McCarthy that'd make you the prince of Qin. The chap who just closed his eyes as his brother took over more and more of the day-to-day running of the empire. Eventually the prince woke up one day only to discover that he'd 'accidentally' signed his own death warrant.

Cause we turned down a loan for Nasser, thats how. Most states that ended up in the Soviet sphere were states the west rejected for some reason or another.

You've answered the (rhetorical) question and missed the point. They went from the Western sphere of influence to the East.

As opposed to Jordan, client state, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, KSA, Baharain, Iran until 1979-hmm, which list is bigger?

Now you're just being silly. Go and find an atlas and work out for yourself which 'list' was more strategic and which countries were of greater importance.
Of even greater import is my point above. Again, those newly formed nations went from the Western sphere into the Eastern during the cold war.

NIgeria? What have you been smoking?? Namibia was controlled by South Africa, fought over by SA and the new Angolan revolutionary regime

I don't smoke. Nigeria received Soviet military supplies and used them in conjunction with Soviet advisors in Soviet-backed excursions into Angola.
Furthermore they had Soviet trade agreements and basing rights for Soviet ships.
Namibia I got wrong. I always mix it up with Mozambique. I meant Mozambique. Another partner in the Angolan venture.

Should have probably included Ethiopia as well in the Sov SOI but that was a rather separate scrap.
Similarly for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

The aggressors? Maybe if the 1956 elections had been held as ordered. The Amount of soviet aid to N Vietnam was much smaller than the amount of US aid to South Vietnam (specially since the USSR did not pump in 500,000 men)

The disparity between aid and actual units committed wasn't really important. US forces defended while NV forces attacked. SV forces were less reliable leading to increasing levels of US assistance to try and stave off defeat.
Coupled with the VC subversive activities, not to mention the Sov's winning the propaganda war it rather balanced out.
The NV were simply better at what they did with what they had. They had an easier job afterall.

The US was pumping money into Indochina before France left, and long before the Soviets got involved at all.

The US was trying to destabilize France?
I guess I can't argue with that as I have no knowledge of it whatsoever ...

Actually, obviously knowing far more about the history of Cuba and NIcaragua than you, yes, these were internally driven revolutions against innept and corrupt regimes.

I don't know about your greater knowledge but if you seriously believe that these successes came from 'spontaneous' outpourings of popular support without 'outside' assistance then I certainly do know how much that knowledge is worth.
That's almost as ridiculous as suggesting that the Miami-based Cuban exiles didn't receive support from US sources in their counter-revoultionary efforts later.

Oh, MY GOD! Support! Are you talking about money and well wishes? You know what? We gave "support" to Yushenko supporters in the Ukraine-are Serbs claims the US engineered the situation true then!?

Sorry, but the comparisons you are trying to make verge on the absurd. From the small stuff to the large the Soviets never could hold a candle to what the US could do-it wasn't the Soviet block beaming radio broadcasts worldwide with its message that "free" countries had to try to block....

Radio free America??!!



And you call my comparisons absurd?
That's a last ditch effort to try and match the SU in psy warfare. Cuba's public position is that they jam it.
And you're trying to portray this as the highlight of the US propaganda war?
And as an effective counter to Sov-backed armed subversive groups around the world?
I didn't know this was a joke thread.

As for Yushenko I wouldn't know. It'd depend on whether funding came from official Govt sources, camoflaged corporate interests or completely private corporate donations.
They may have a point, but then again they may not.

[Edit: flippin' quotes!]

[ravagon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The US intervened in seven times the countries the USSR did from 1945 on. As of yet, no insurgency can be claimed to have been started by the USSR, although they did aid several that had already shown themselves capable of being more than bandits and the Soviets did, unusually, try and foment one in Pinocet's Chile. The number of coups that can be laid at the Soviet's feet are maybe two: Afganistan and Grenada.

The US had more countries in their sphere of influence. Of course they probably did 'intervene' more often.
And that's how intell agencies work - you use what you can where you find it. Your 'destabilising' efforts don't have to end in a successful coup either. They just have to eat up more of the oppositions resources to contain than it takes for you to sustain. Nor did I never argue that they necessarily began any of them.

OTOH though I'm hardly about to concede that you or anyone else has the slightest idea where any insurgency can be said to have 'begun'.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ravagon
They were neither minor nor irrelevant. The Shah's lot hit first and hurt them. Otherwise they could've been in the driving seat in the late 70's.

Presence of Communists = Soviet subversion? Tudeh was around from the 1920s, well before Stalin tried to turn the Comintern into an agent of Soviet foreign polciy (and the only place he ever really succeede was in the CPUSA). Yeah, the Soviets sure were the professionals that the CIA were playing catch up to and barely keeping at bay!

You've answered the (rhetorical) question and missed the point. They went from the Western sphere of influence to the East.

Your assertion was of a Soviet Fu Manchu devilishly manipulating the foreign policy of the world, while the U.S. was barely holding them back. In this specific case, the Egyptians switched sides because the West told them to take a hike, same as happened with Castro and the Sandanistas, ironically engouh.

I don't smoke. Nigeria received Soviet military supplies and used them in conjunction with Soviet advisors in Soviet-backed excursions into Angola.

You definately do smoke. Receiving military supplies from the USSR is evidence of nothing. Their weapons were less expensive, and Nigeria has always been in the Western orbit. There the coups were always greed driven, who would get to control the country's oil wealth, not what super power you wanted as a backer.

I meant Mozambique. Another partner in the Angolan venture.

Another victim of a South African and CIA backed war wich like Angola, suiffered a million dead from externally organized and armed terrorist groups. Cuba defended Angola from the South African/CIA led terrorists. They didn't start the war, they went in to help an existing government that still remains today.

Should have probably included Ethiopia as well in the Sov SOI but that was a rather separate scrap.
Similarly for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

So any time a leftist revolutionary comes to power, that's evidence of Soviet machinations? Cuz those countries certainly weren't giant ****holes and the people there weren't desperate for a new government until some white guy from Moscow told them they should overthrow the divine Haile Salasse or the apartheid government in Rhodesia.

The NV were simply better at what they did with what they had. They had an easier job afterall.

No, the people of SV hated their corrupt, brutal, French-speaking, Catholic, and imposed from outside government. The government in the South was illegitimate from the beginning and never had the support of its own population. The only propaganda war was the one carried out by the Americans, in a desperate hope to try and win over the people of SV, and it never worked.

I don't know about your greater knowledge but if you seriously believe that these successes came from 'spontaneous' outpourings of popular support without 'outside' assistance then I certainly do know how much that knowledge is worth.

You don't know **** about those revolutions then. Castro was a hero in the U.S. until after the revolution. If there was the slightest hint that he was a commie, the U.S. would have poured aid towards saving Batista's butt, instead of letting the corrupt murdering bastard fall. It wasn't until after Cuba nationalized some American owned comapnies that we soured towards him, and it wasn't until we snubbed him at the UN that he joined with the Soviets, and it wasn't until a year or so after that that he became a Communist.

As for Nicaragua, it was the earthquake of 1974 that spelled the end of the regime, when Somoza stole all the international aid for the people. Nicaragua didn't get Soviet aid until the U.S. began attacking them with the Countras. They were friendly with Cuba, but you know what Castro told them? Try and stay friendly with the U.S.! Oh, the Devious soviet influence!!

That's almost as ridiculous as suggesting that the Miami-based Cuban exiles didn't receive support from US sources in their counter-revoultionary efforts later.

The difference is, we can point to actual shipments of goods, documents, actions, of the U.S. supporting the terrorist campaign against Cuba. All you have are your assertions that there were evil Soviets behind every downtrodden peasant who finally said he'd had enough.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Adopted = blowing the hell out of?

Like a red-headed step child.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ravagon
OTOH though I'm hardly about to concede that you or anyone else has the slightest idea where any insurgency can be said to have 'begun'.

Right, so until a KGB agent showed up in Rhodesia, Black people there had no reason to overthrow the brutal racist white government? My gosh, were the Soviets so devious as to go back in time and spur the French peasants to overthrow their King!?! I'll bet they were behind the American Revolution as well, because we know that no one every had their own reasons for overthrowing their own government.

The USSR had a limited amount of aid to go around, and didn't just arm every bandit willinilly hoping to get lucky. If an insurgency showed signs of being self-sustainable, then the USSR might aid it. Neither Cuba nor the Nicaragua got aid from the USSR until after their revolutions. On the other hand, the U.S. would create new guerilla armies by hiring unemployed people, thugs, bandits, whomever would take a paycheck to slaughter their kinsmen.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


We gave lists 500,000 names long?

Yes, people are guilty of what they have done- certainly the US could forsee a bad outcome for those on lists, but to blame everything on the US is wrong- you know what? SUHARTO COULD HAVE SAID NO.

I grew up with a more leftists education that you- I grew up reading comic books were uncle sam wore a top hat adorned with swastikas- and ask around Poly, but I am defgnitely in the "left"- but one thing I do know is that black and white thinking is the death of reason.

"Mr. President, have you approved of covert activity to destablise the present government of Nicaragua?"

"Well, no, we're supporting them, the - oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm sorry, I was thinking of El Salvador, because of the previous, when you said Nicaragua. Here again, this is something upon which the national security interests, I just - I will not comment."

Ronald Reagan, former US President, Washington press conference, February 13th 1983, as quoted by John Pilger in 'Heroes'


So the question is Gepap, what would the Iranian Secret Police, the Indonesian Special Forces in East Timor, the Iraqi hit squads in the Red Wave purge and the Contras have used to overthrow governments or invade sovereign territories, or slaughter thousands?

Election leaflets?

Food aid?

Ballot boxes?

Prayer mats?


There is a very real difference between overthrowing despotisms and devising coups for the benefit of United Fruit, or American oil interests, or American mining companies, or French telecommunications interests, or Anglo-American coffee interests.


Yes, individuals are responsible for their own actions, but the 1963 coup in Iraq or the devastating invasion of East Timor in 1976 or the long running 'civil' war in Angola and the activities of the Contras in Nicaragua aren't akin to isolated incidents of playground bullying.
That thousands were killed in the Iraq coup of 1963 (the infamous Red Wave purge) is a given, but could so many have been killed without the membership lists supplied to Ba'athists by British and American intelligence?

Consider the arms, manpower and expense required to launch the many coups and wars sponsored around the world by the world's self-appointed gendarmes- and then ask who is the more responsible.

Coups don't take place in vacuums, and certainly in the countries the United States has an abiding 'interest' in, rarely succeed, or the new regime endure, if they are are seen to be unfavourable to American financial concerns.

The thing that perhaps most irks people such as tehcumseh and me is the yawning credibility gap between the activities of the C.I.A. and various American governments in the Twentieth Century and the nobility of purpose expounded by John Quincy Adams:

" Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Address given on July 4th 1821, from Ronald Steel's 'Pax Americana' , publ. New York 1967


I wonder what he would have made of Taft's 'moral protectorate' of Nicaragua, or Wilson's orders to the Marines to 'govern' the Dominican Republic, or Reagan's support for the Contras and Unita.

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh

The coordination of economic pressure, sanctions, aid reductions, media manipulations, psychological warfare, phoney strikes, assasinations and terrorist attacks leading up to a coup is very sophisticated. They are beyond the capabilities of the elites and/or military of these countries. Hell, they're beyond the capacity of most industrialized countries.

Coups are certainly NOT beyond the powers of locals to carry out, as the endless coups in Latin America show. I don't argue the US was involved. I simply do NOT absolve the locals who actually did the killing. Again, without willing participants these things don't happen.

You seek to absolve the US of responsibility for overthrowing the governments of dozens of countries by pointing to the obvious fact that they have local collaborators. I find it most unconvincing.

No, I seek to apportion responsibility to all parties involved- the US is responsible, so are the locals who worked with them, and most of the time it was the locals who did the killing for their own reasons.

You also use your timeworn method of hair splitting to try and dismiss the principles which I clearly laid out as the basis for my argument. Let's drop the term "legitimate", for the sake of argument. Do you agree with these principles, or not? If not, what are yours? Surely it's more than just "seeing the world in shades of grey"? And do you really believe that citizens in a democracy have no duties or responsibilities?

Yes, I agree in principle that one state should not go around undemrining other regimes. I also agree than in a Liberal democratic regime, citizens do have responsibilities, and a very small amount of duties. But returning to the point of this thread, NO, I do not see subversion of neighboring states through underhanded means means a nation is warlike. A warlike Nation would say screw it and simply invade. The US could have invaded Chile, could have invaded Indonesia. We didn't.

[Cruddy]

Umm... I would say the US is PERCEIVED as a warlike country. Practically all the Americans I've met have been pretty regular folks - less agressive than say, Kiwis or Aussies.

Of course, that could mean I've just been meeting the wrong people.

[techumseh]

There is quite a bit of information available about some of these coups. It proves that they aren't simple, locally organized affairs. But you're entitled to your opinion.

The next place to watch is Venezuela. One coup has already been defeated, and Pres. Chavez has accused the US of being involved. Recently the prosecutor assembling the case against the coup plotters was blown up in his car. Nevertheless, the case will soon come to trial, and it's bound to be very revealing.

A major strike by senior employees of the national oil company (PDVSA) followed, and it was defeated as well. Former Pres. Jimmy Carter went down to sort that out for the US, once it was clear the strike had failed.

Chavez is investing Venezuela's oil profits in improving literacy and health for the country's poor, contrary to IMF policy. This was the trigger for the strike by the management of PDVSA. He's also looking at land reform, something which is bound to get him further into Washington's bad books.

Internationally, Chavez is committing the cardinal sin in US eyes, cozying up to Castro. This has cost more than one Carribean/Latin American leader his job. Moreover, he has just signed an investment and oil deal with China, making Venezuela the first major offshore source of oil for China. Given US anxiety about oil supplies from Iraq and the growing shorage of oil in the world, you know Washington is pissed 'bout that one.

So Venezuela is the place to watch for conspiracy nuts, CIA paranoiacs, and America haters the world over. Anyone want popcorn?

[Ned]

Originally posted by techumseh

You probably did, but how would you know? And who cares? The political problem here is the same problem the US has. There is no real left, at least as far as I can see.

Whereas in Canada, Australia and Europe there is a real democratic left, there is none in the US. Liberals, considered in other countries as centre or even right of centre, pass for the left in the US. And that's why there is no consistent, principled alternative to Bush and the policy of invasion and regime change.

Just two points on this:

1) While I am somewhat hard on the American left, there are many Democrats who do share the same fundamental values with Republicans on America's role in the world. Bill Clinton, for example, conducted several wars to end genocide and to restore order in a chaotic world. The legacy of the US using its military and other assets to stabalize the world is largely bipartisan in nature. Thus to suggest that there is no "left" to oppose the Bush foreign policy is somewhat true as the two major parties only seem to disagree on detailed implementation issues, but largely this is only politics and not real. I have often said that the best speech by any Senator in support of the Iraq war was given by Hillary Clinton. If she were in the Republican Party, I am sure she would be labelled as a warmonger herself. Thus, even though I will still probably support a Republican in the next election, I would lend Hillary my full support as an American if she were elected president because I am sure she would conduct a foreign policy somewhat indistinguishable from any Republican just as I thought her husband did when he was president.

2) The so-called democratic left in Canada and elsewhere are socialists are they not? You tend to support socialists elsewhere in the world even if such socialists are undemocratic in their methods. This tends to give one pause when contemplating the genuinous of your claims to be "democratic."

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Ned

2) The so-called democratic left in Canada and elsewhere are socialists are they not? You tend to support socialists elsewhere in the world even if such socialists are undemocratic in their methods. This tends to give one pause when contemplating the genuinous of your claims to be "democratic."

A couple of assumptions leading to an erroneous conclusion.