I'm an American tired of American lies

[Goingonit]

Every nation that has beein in a situation to do so has done it. Your quarrel should not be with America but with realpolitik.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Every nation that has beein in a situation to do so has done it. Your quarrel should not be with America but with realpolitik.

"Everybody does it" does not make an action morally right. And unless you can produce evidence of every country doing it, that doesn't hold water. What is, say, New Zealand doing right now in a comparable vein? Or Sweden?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Actually you weren't refuting it. Failing to understand it as applied to the previous post, possibly. Look at the argument Chris was presenting: because Saddam had been an enemy of the U.S. for x number of years, then he could not have been helped by the C.I.A. in the past, or have been a 'client', stooge or ally of the U.S. , because the leftist/opposition press would have broadcast this, and he, Chris, would have known about it too...

I think what he was saying was, since *everyone* knows that Bin Laden used to be an American ally, the same would be true with Saddam.

And Boris, I'm just saying that it's not America, it's the entire system, that can be viewed as wrong. You cannot condemn America alone, for its acions were based on a larger, worldwide political philosophy.

And I wasn't saying everyone, just everyone who could supported dictators at some point.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Actually you weren't refuting it. Failing to understand it as applied to the previous post, possibly. Look at the argument Chris was presenting: because Saddam had been an enemy of the U.S. for x number of years, then he could not have been helped by the C.I.A. in the past, or have been a 'client', stooge or ally of the U.S. , because the leftist/opposition press would have broadcast this, and he, Chris, would have known about it too...

I'm affraid your operating off flawed ideas, old boy.

First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.

What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.

Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.

Sorry, your whole theory just went down in flames.

Was fairly interesting though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm affraid your operating off flawed ideas, old boy.

First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.

What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.

Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.

Sorry, your whole theory just went down in flames.

Was fairly interesting though.

Which press would that be, then Chris? The press you prefer to read, or the 'other' press? Are American newspapers the sole repositories of universal truths, or are there any other publications that might have access to facts- facts that might discomfort a current administration trying to garner support for an attack on a regime its predecessors once propped up?

'Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.'

This is an assertion- not an objective fact. Organising an international coalition (and a 'home' coalition) against Iraq needs untidy and unpleasant facts like previous support for Iraq and Saddam forgotten:

'Kroft. A lot of that equipment that's facing the United States right now was
sold to the Iraqis by you, Sarkis.
Sarkis. Yeah, but I didn't sell it eight years ago to fight ourselves today.
That was sold to fight Khomeini. And we were against Khomeini. U.S. had hostages
there, and I said, I'll go ahead and take my share in it.
Kroft. So you sold the weapons to the Iraqis to fight the. . .
Sarkis. Khomeinis . . . not to fight the, you know, Americans.
Kroft. Right. Because that would be best for America . . . and best maybe for
Sarkis.
Sarkis. Well, you get compensated sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that.
And if Sarkis wouldn't do it, somebody else would do it.
Kroft. And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of
armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions.
German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only
approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but [also sold] armed helicopters and
antiaircraft missile systems.
This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster
bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United
States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed
Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the
sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes.
Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait.
Sarkis. I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also
they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have
anything on my conscience. I did not sell the weapons to kill the American boys.

Kroft. Which agencies of the U.S. government knew about Sarkis and his deals
with Iraq? Well, according to Sarkis, almost all of them. And federal court
documents show that Sarkis Soghanalian had a relationship with U.S. intelligence
agencies for decades, and has performed work on their behalf.
Not all of Sarkis's deals with Iraq involve weapons. He arranged the sale of
$280 million in uniforms to the Iraqi army. And Sarkis's partners in the deal
included former Vice President Spiro Agnew, a former Attorney General, Colonel
Jack Brennan.
The partners used their influence to get ex-President Nixon to provide them with
these letters of introduction [shown on screen] to heads of state around the
world.
[To Sarkis] Do you think there was anything unusual about a former Vice
President and a former Attorney General and a former Chief of Staff for the
President of the United Stateas to want to be selling military uniforms to the
Iraqis?
Sarkis. They were not only in the uniform business. They would sell their
mothers if they could, just to make the money.
Kroft. Some of his partners in that deal aren't talking to him
at all today. They're in court suing Sarkis over the multimillion dollar
commissions they say he hasn't paid them
... [To Sarkis] Are you a Merchant of Death? You are an arms salesman.
Sarkis. No. I am a coordinator of industries that produce arms. But I am not a
salesman. I don't carry no bag. I don't carry no catalogue in my pocket to sell
arms to anybody.'

from:

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Which press would that be, then Chris? The press you prefer to read, or the 'other' press? Are American newspapers the sole repositories of universal truths, or are there any other publications that might have access to facts- facts that might discomfort a current administration trying to garner support for an attack on a regime its predecessors once propped up?

'Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.'

This is an assertion- not an objective fact. Organising an international coalition (and a 'home' coalition) against Iraq needs untidy and unpleasant facts like previous support for Iraq and Saddam forgotten

I don't think anyone's forgetting America's support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Chris is saying that he wasn't brought to power by the CIA, or else we'd know about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NOW is supporting rights for women.

Do you not consider women to be human? Not shocking...

The Christian Coalition is supporting rights for Christians.

Do you not consider Christains to be human? Not shocking...

--

To call NOW a human rights organization is degrading to human rights organization. NOW is a special interest group dealing in a purely political issue (as opposed to humanitarian issues).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Goingonit
And Boris, I'm just saying that it's not America, it's the entire system, that can be viewed as wrong. You cannot condemn America alone, for its acions were based on a larger, worldwide political philosophy.

And I wasn't saying everyone, just everyone who could supported dictators at some point.

I don't find that acceptable, either. Blaming the system doesn't wash. After all, plenty of Nazis blamed the system they operated under. They still committed the crimes, should they not be held accountable?

Besides, the U.S., moreso than any other nation, has the ability to break the system and set better standards. Since we know such actions are morally wrong, why don't we start doing that?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Goingonit


I don't think anyone's forgetting America's support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Chris is saying that he wasn't brought to power by the CIA, or else we'd know about it.

I don't think that is his argument:

'First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.
Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.'

from one of Chris's previous posts. Unless Chris is an avid reader of left of centre periodicals, he seems to have a great deal of faith in an osmosis method for information reaching him.

Does CBS count as a 'press' outlet? If so, then Chris missed the deals and associations outlined in that broadcast. I inserted an internet link to review of a book on C.I.A./Iraq/Saddam links, which book again Chris would seem not to have read. Possibly because it was not an 'American' book. His reasoning, such as it is, seems to be grounded in appeals to emotion and groundless airy assertions on the omniscient coverage of the American press and his supposed Argus-eyed watch on it.

As for your previous post- I don't have a 'quarrel' with America! No more than I have a 'quarrel' with Australia, where I now live, for its tacit support of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and West Papua. I can quite happily separate opposition to a particular party/government from opposition to a country/people- that chauvinist nationalist stance is not one to which I have ever subscribed .

[Goingonit]

Good! The sooner the US starts being nice to everyone, the better. (I would argue, though, that they haven't done any serious dictatorial-govenrment-propping-up since 1979.) But we can't portray the US as the global bogeyman.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

To call NOW a human rights organization is degrading to human rights organization. NOW is a special interest group dealing in a purely political issue (as opposed to humanitarian issues).

NOW is a major advocate of the rights of women and children around the globe, including the plight of women in third world countries, rape, torture, executions, etc. How in are those purely political issues?

[Imran Siddiqui]

After all, plenty of Nazis blamed the system they operated under.

And I don't think most of them were to blame for that. It was just the winners writing history again. I'm sure plenty of Brits would have been tried and executed for commiting crimes against the Aryan race if Hitler took Britain.

[molly bloom]

Goingonit, I'm not sure why you picked 1979 as the 'conscience' date for the United States.

Ferdinand Marcos was still in power in the Philippines. Mobutu was still in power in Zaire. Jeane Kirkpatrick had yet to form her 'Women for Dictators' glee club at the United Nations.
El Salvador was a running sore of civil war, right wing death squads and assassinations. Nicaragua was enjoying the attentions of the U.S. backed Contras after having just toppled the loathsome Somoza regime -(also U.S. backed).
Guatemala, well, see Nicaragua, above- similar situation, different players, army atrocities against indigenous peoples an added elemnt of spice.
Zia ul Haq of Pakistan was propped up by the U.S.
So was Fujimori in Peru.
King Hassan II of Morocco was also a friend- the same king whose country invaded the Western Sahara, and whose regime illegally detained and sometimes just plain forgot about civilian opposition leaders and supporters.
Then of course you have American support for Renamo in Mozambique, tacit support for South Africa (in illegal occupation of Namibia) and for South African incursions into Angola, and for Jonas Savimbi's murdering Unita forces.
Was the U.S. alone in supporting these scions of humanity? Well, no- and the U.S.S.R. as was, was busy supporting some of their opponents. The question is though- do you feel that there should be a moral equivalence between the policy of the United States and the U.S.S.R. or China?

Or do you think there should be a divergence?

[Ned]

Perhaps Woody Harrelson ought to go to the gassed Kurd villiages and repeat what he just said. I bet that would be the last thing he says.

[NeOmega]

What Chris 62 says he said
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.

What Chris 62 originally said
Saddam has been a US enemy for 12 years now, if there was even a remote possibility that was true, it would have been blasted all over the press, who LOVE such stories.

I think your earlier statement were much more sweeping.
There is a huge difference between "known" and "true"

Why do you continually assume the press is/was against war with Saddam? Back then, they were willing to show footage of a Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter testify the Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out of their incubators, and that oil rig trucks were Mobile Scud Missile launchers.

The thing I found most disturbing about the first Gulf war were the American Lies being pressed upon me. The sudden villification of Saddam Hussein. How Iraq became the most vile Country in the world overnight.

The press wanted this war.