When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The ues of external force also allowed South Korea to remain free of North Korea while the threat of external force is the only reason Taiwan is still free. True both Taiwan and South Korea took a few decades to mature but they are now fully functioning democracies with all the modern protections which go along with it.

Uhm, to "remain free" one would have had to have been free in the first place. Korea only became mostly democratic in the 90s, and is still quite thuggish today. The same goes for Taiwan. The force applied by the West was to defend brutal dicatorships of the worst kind.

BTW China has forcably exported communism in the past decades before Iraq. North Korea exists today solely because the communist Chinese started a war there

Exporting communism means spreading it someplace it did not already exist. In the case of Korea, China did not export communism, but defended a regime that was already there. In fact, if anyone exported anything, it was the United States, who occupied the South in 1945, and overthrew the Communist government there which had been established when Japan fell.

As for the Korean War, the fact is, both sides had been raiding and skimishing, and there was more or less a state of hostilities on both sides of the border. On the first day of the war, South Korea reported taking a North Vietnamese city, and there's some reason to believe the war started as a RoK border incursion which the DPRK escalated into a full blown war.

North Vietnam would have lost the war in 1968 or 1969 had nearly the entire north Vietnamese war effort been backed by China & the USSR.

Again, Communism already existed in Vietnam. This was not a case of exporting ideology as defending it from U.S. attack. In the case of South Vietnam, elections were canceled and the people of South Vietnam revolted. Had the United States not invaded the country, the war would have ended in the mid 60s with the Viet Cong taking power, instead of being put off another decade and needing the NVA to finish the liberation of Vietnam.

Communist revolution has been exported, however: Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Tibet. Most revolutions, however, are indigenous, and not spawned in the depths of the KGB, regardless of what Washington would have us believe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Same thing with Saddam. The CIA didn't bring him into power. After all, the Ba'ath Party was SOCIALIST!

The CIA hired Hussein while he was in exile in Cairo after a failed attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq. In 1963, when the Ba'athists came to power, the CIA handed Hussein a list of 5,000 suspected Communists, most of whom ended up dead. That's about the extent of the CIA and Hussein's partnership. If they hadn't hired him, however, it's unlikely he would have risen to power later, as it was his performance in '63 that led to him becoming so important when the Ba'athists returned to power in '68.

As for the Ba'thists being socialist, the CIA and the US likely prefered that over the Communists that were in the previous government. IIRC, it was the previous government who pulled Iraq from the Bagdad Pact, nationalized Iraqi oil, and tossed out the West.

[Dinner]

Thor, Yes Saddam was the muscle for the Ba'athists and he did attempt to assassinate Fiasel II but failed. Neither the US nor the UK wanted to see the monarchy over thrown since they worked very well with western interests (military bases and BP's oil production) but one of the first things the Ba'athists did upon taking power in 1958 was to close the bases and nationalize first BP's assets then the rest of the foreign assets. In 1962 the communists attempted to over throw the Ba'athists but failed the CIA then assisted liberal Republicans in a coupe d'estate against the ba'athists.

The new guys were politically incompetant and pissed off all parties including the communists, the west, the Islamists, and the Ba'athists. If memory serves it was 1967 when Saddam once again worked as the muscle behind a new Ba'athist coupe. He was one of three men who controlled the country though he teamed up with the top man to get ride of the number two then eventually forced out the number one giving him sole power. The west still was pissed about the coupe of there guys in '67 plus the nationalization of foreign assets in '58 and the closure of the bases. They blamed Ba'athists for that and so weren't going to help Ba'athists.

They finally changed their mind when Iran become the new public enemy number one.

[child of Thor]

thanks for clearing that up che and Oerdin - i knew i'd read/been told about it somewhere.

If i had more space in my sig i'd like to 'own' this thread title - many would say it sums me up nicely

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The CIA hired Hussein while he was in exile in Cairo after a failed attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq.

I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king. That was an entirely Ba'athist plot. The CIA did give Saddam a list of suspected communists in the late 60's as a way to reach detant with him and prevent communist influence and, yes, Saddam went out and killed most of them just as he killed most Kurdish leaders, Shi'a leaders, and monarchists.

In 1963 when the Ba'athist retook power Saddam was in excile in Egypt but because of his past work for the Ba'athists he was given the number 3 spot (by his uncle I believe).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king.

I never said he did. I said he tried to kill the President, but failed. I never said the CIA had anything to do with it. They hired him after he went into exile.

In 1963 when the Ba'athist retook power Saddam was in excile in Egypt but because of his past work for the Ba'athists he was given the number 3 spot (by his uncle I believe).

You mean 1968. I know Hussein was in exile in Egypt before '63, but I don't know where he went after the Ba'athist government fell.

[Odin]

Originally posted by VJ

Out of interest: How do you define "neo-conservative"?

Conservatives who use Wilsonism as a cover for helping thier corporate buddies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
one of the first things the Ba'athists did upon taking power in 1958 was to close the bases and nationalize first BP's assets then the rest of the foreign assets. In 1962 the communists attempted to over throw the Ba'athists but failed the CIA then assisted liberal Republicans in a coupe d'estate against the ba'athists.

You've got your years mixed up, Oerdin. "Brigadier Abdul-Karim Qassem ... overthrew the Hashemite monarchy on July 14, 1958." It was Qassem that Hussein tried and failed to kill. In 1963, the Ba'athists succceed in killing him and overthrowing the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#The_End_of_the_Monarchy

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I read at least half a dozen Iraqi history books in the run up to my going there and the CIa most certainly did not hire Saddam to kill the king.
edit......

maybe the 'wrong' ones? lets face it i'm sure the military would not clear(or at least 'flag') the kind of books you could get on camp. If it was from outside sources then maybe you were just lucky/unlucky in the books you got?

I'm certain the british and us had to smuggle him out of Iraq when his attempt failed, it was a bit of a balls up by all accounts and both the british and US interested parties were furious with him.

[Dinner]

Che: OK, I can give you that communism had already been exported to both North Korea and North Vietnam so the Chinese just intervined to prevent they're collapse. I'm not so certain about most communist governments being created by domestic communist revolutions though since outside influence created all but the Soviet one. Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons. None of Eastern Europe outside of the USSR was native and several attempted revoltsw to end communism.

Castro waqs previously just a nationalist dictator before the US became militantly hostile to him due to his nationalization of US assets; after that the Soviets offered him aid but only if he became a communist. The Sandinistas were originally after the traditional land redistrubition most Latin American revolutionaries were after and originally didn't plan state ownership of assets. It was only after Cuba and the Soviets started giving them aid that they became dedicated communists. Ethiopia, North Yemen, Tanzania, and a few other 3rd world spots in Africa and Asia were nothing more then military dictatorships experiencing a sudden conversion to communism when the Soviets offered them aid. While Cambodia, mongolia, Tibet, and Loas had communism forced on them by foreign occupying armies.

[child of Thor]

Ok Oerdin, i'm with you on much of the communism thing. So what makes what the usa is trying to do around the world any different/better?
Is it really trying to make the world a better place or just self-interest and greed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Che: OK, I can give you that communism had already been exported to both North Korea and North Vietnam

Exported is not the correct word to use. In both cases, Communist governments were established by indigenous forces, without the aid of outsiders. In both cases, Communists were the dominent force in leading anti-Japanese (and later anti-French) resistence.

The word export seems to indicate that it was the Soviets or Chinese who were the ones sending Communism to them, when it was the locals who brought it about, and then went to the USSR and the PRC for aid.

I'm not so certain about most communist governments being created by domestic communist revolutions though since outside influence created all but the Soviet one. Even China was linked to the Soviets and they were on the ropes until the Soviets gave Manchuria to them along with most of the Japanese occupation army's weapons.

That's not exactly the case. While those things did happen, it was the fact that the PLA led the struggle against the Japanese (unlike the KMT, who only fought the Japanese when the Japanese attacked them, preferin instead to attack the PLA) that led to the PLA's growth and eventual victory. The Communists taped into the Chinese nationalism much more than the Nationalists did. If it was simply a matter of aid, than the massive aid the U.S. poured into the KMT would have countered the meager assistance of the USSR.

None of Eastern Europe outside of the USSR was native and several attempted revoltsw to end communism

No, they attempted to throw out the USSR, which is different. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, the demands weren't "Down with Socialism!" but "Socialism and Democracy!" It's just overtime, anti-Soviet became equated with anti-communist.

[DinoDoc]

Who says Apolyton isn't educational

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The critics get on this and say that Neoconservatives are really hardcore Straussians

Yes. I found an interesting essay on the subject. What Would Strauss Do?

[Ned]

Sava, re your original post: It looks like there might be hope for you yet.

On the US so-called double standard, we are signatories to the Nuke Non-Proliferation Treaty. It obligates us to negotiate our way to 0 nuclear weapons with other nuclear states. That is exactly what we have been doing.

Most importantly, there is no double-standard.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Ok Oerdin, i'm with you on much of the communism thing. So what makes what the usa is trying to do around the world any different/better?
Is it really trying to make the world a better place or just self-interest and greed?

It is trying to make the world more capitalist and more democratic. Of course they expect to profit from this though more markets being open and growing faster then under communism or Islamism but, generally, they really do want to export the idea of democracy. In nearly every case that improves the lives of people tremendously. It's not always a straight line and it can get down right messy but the motivation to do good is sincere.