I'm an American tired of American lies

[MattyBoy]

I sincerely doubt that Iraq will end up grateful for US/Australia/etc's efforts if we do go to war.

One thing that grates on me is this repeated use of "weapons of mass destruction" as a justification. Has anybody else noticed that George himself possesses "weapons of mass destruction"? Doesn't it strike everybody else as hypocritical?

[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.

Sometimes from my tour d'ivoire I see further than those in bunkers with blinkers on.

From 'Saddam's War- The Origin of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response' by John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, publ. faber and faber, 1991 :

'Throughout the 1960s, in fact, Ba'athism was recognized by the West as a useful counterweight to the spread of Communism in the region. Western hegemony in the Arab states on the Soviet Union's southern flank was crumbling under pressure from Nasserism in Egypt, a civil war in Lebanon and by the 1958 coup which brought Brigadier Qassem to power in Iraq, with the backing of the Iraqi Communist Party. U.S. forces landed in Lebanon to prevent the nationalist upsurge spreading and also to threaten the new Iraqi regime with intervention if it tampered with Western oil interests. A motive for the suspicion with which Saddam and other Ba'athist exiles were later treated by Nasser's secret police was that they were suspected of having dealings with the C.I.A. ; Saddam himself was said to have made regular visits to the U.S. Embassy when he was in exile in Cairo.

After Qassem was overthrown by the Ba'athist military coup of February 8th 1963, the Paris magazine L'Express wrote:
'The Iraqi coup was inspired by the C..I.A. . The British government and Nasser himself were aware of the putsch preparations.'
Qassem had revealed just four days before the coup that he had received a warning from the U.S. State Department that America would impose sanctions against Iraq if it went ahead with plans to exploit untapped oil concessions from the foreign multinationals in 1961. The Ba'athist coup of 1963 headed off this threat to Western interests but also provoked one of the bloodiest periods of Iraq's violent history.
[...]
In the following weeks before they were thrown out in November, Ba'athist thugs wearing the uniform of the National Guard hunted down hundreds of leftists, using names and addresses provided by the C.I.A., then tortured and summarily executed them, despite their assurances to the Americans that members of the Communist party would be put on trila before courts martial.

[..] In Iraq the right wing of the Ba'ath party, led by Saddam and Bakr, was in the ascendancy....Nasser even sent a warning to the Iraqi prime minister, Taher Yahya, that Egyptian intelligence had learnt of a Ba'athist plot to stage a coup 'for the benefit of the C.I.A.' . '

pp 54-56

The book also provides transcripts of meetings between senators from American grain producing states and Saddam, and details of the conversations between American ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam and other Iraqi officials. Well worth a read. Perhaps you could convince some American newspaper or magazine to start a serialisation, but I don't think you'd find many takers in today's bellicose climate.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by 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.

Maybe I was off by a few years (Make it 1991). But my point is the same: that was a cold-war method of thinking that has now been supplanted.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Goingonit


Maybe I was off by a few years (Make it 1991). But my point is the same: that was a cold-war method of thinking that has now been supplanted.

And all that I can say is I wish.

This is more in the fashion than ever. It is not covert anymore it is open (as there is no credible opposition) and unilateral. These days they do not need to provide help to the opposition secretly trough CIA, they can go and start an outright war, which is just happening. The purpose of both systems was regime change in a 'souvereign' country. This is just much more blunt, and will have a higher success rate than the former, as no regime can go againt the US army straight. OK Vietnamese managed to do it with huge losses, but these days it is even less probable.

So apart from Iraq there is Iran, North Korea, on the list of "three" and Libya, Syria, and two more... on the list of "seven" axis of evil countries.

"axis of evil" what moron invented this term, must be the influence of Hollywood...

UN is rendered useless with the latest developments. It is only China, EU, and USSR that mean something but it is not outright opposition, and maybe India and Pakistan...

We will see where this 'bully' tactic will lead the world.

edit:

what is even more scary: It is this kind of unilateral behaviour that might prompt someone who is rightly afraid for his wellbeing and cornered like a hunted fox, to give a nuke to fundie terrorists (or maybe even Pakistan could accidentally loose one), send it on a ship and detonate in NY harbour... as a message. After all it is war.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I don't think that is his argument:

Think again, it is.

I really wish you cease these attempts at mind reading, your rather poor at it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Everybody does it" does not make an action morally right.

I'd much prefer an amoral foreign policy. It'd keep us out of a lot of pointless conflicts in which our participation doesn't benefit us.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd much prefer an amoral foreign policy.

Are you implying there that the US conducts a moral foreign policy ?

[DinoDoc]

It's the only way I can rationalize the inept and ill-advised interventions in the Balkans and Somalia to name a few.

[Roland]

Even if you count Bosnia and Somalia (and definately not Kosovo), that's the exception confirming the rule.

[Sava]

Woody's not such a dope after all ...

Chris62, your ignorance and naivety is so thick, I could get stuck in it if I stepped in it.

Who was the Taliban? The Muhajadeen (US sponsored)... Who did the US support in the 1980's when Iran was tops on its sh!t list? Mr Saddam...

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's the only way I can rationalize the inept and ill-advised interventions in the Balkans and Somalia to name a few.

I'm glad to see we see eye to eye on at least one issue

[DinoDoc]

Are you telling me that there actually was a rational reason for the US to inject itself into the Kosovo conflict? I would also count Hati, the continual sanctions on Cuba, the idiotic rhetoric about installing a democarcy in Iraq.

I'm not arguing that the US has a foreign policy based solely on morality. I'm arguing that idealism in foreign policy leads to conflict.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are you telling me that there actually was a rational reason for the US to inject itself into the Kosovo conflict? I would also count Hati, the continual sanctions on Cuba, the idiotic rhetoric about installing a democarcy in Iraq, etc.

??? I'm confused again (it happens a lot I'm afraid )... I am against the US intervention in those regions... There was no rational reason to go to any of those places. Just the US's narcissistic need to play policeman...

[Roland]

"Are you telling me that there actually was a rational reason for the US to inject itself into the Kosovo conflict?"

Not all amoral reasons are rational. Not all moral reasons are arational.

Anyway I've been wondering about this too, esp as Albright went all *****y about it. Only makes sense to employ NATO and torpedo the CFSP.

"the continual sanctions on Cuba"

They have nothing to do with morals and all with special interest whoring.

"the idiotic rhetoric about installing a democarcy in Iraq"

You're not taking that seriously, are you ?

Haiti didn't amount too much, or ?

[Serb]

Are you telling me that there actually was a rational reason for the US to inject itself into the Kosovo conflict?

Perhaps, this reason is- to provide US bashers with new arguments and new proofs of US evilness?