When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[child of Thor]

well there must be various 'versions' of history floating around.

From what i've read and been told ref Saddam; he was a small time thug from a working class(britishism-sorry) background.

The Cia got involved with him when they were conducting covert ops in Iraq during this time. They recruited Saddam(much like they did OBL in afghanistan), and hatched a plot for Saddam to assisnate the current king of Iraq.

He bungled the attempt and then the Cia(aided by british secret services) had to clear up the mess and smuggle him out while things settled down.

Later they used some army generals to succesfully carry out the assasination(the video documentary evidence of which is quite spine-tingling, but then when you see 'real' death as opposed to acted death, its always more uncomfortable).

Saddam was then put in power with this Cia/british backing. The deal being to supply cheap oil, which of course he renegaded on. Its all in some of the 'biographies' on Saddam and/or his regime you can find in local bookstores.

Now if this kind of stuff is all just 'black-ops' (like the book that caused the rise to power of the neo-cons in the republican party from the 50's onwards), then it would beg the question why? Someone tell me its just communist propaganda

[child of Thor]

maybe it is. Just did a quick google and this is all i've found so far:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/68.html

Its basically says the Kingship of Iraq was set up by the british(oil interests), and always had problems of legitimacy(which i feel the new democratic iraq may face too). It was eventually overthrown by a pro-arab coalition in a military coup in 1968.
At this time the Bathist party came into power which eventualy led to saddam.


So taking this info we have pro-western and artificially created regime being taken over by an arab(and presumably anti-western?) upriseing. The oil doesn't come as cheep so something needs to be done about it?

hmmm....my 'communist conspirecy theory/black-ops' could be fit into this frame work but i'll leave as it is - it seems good enough for what follows next?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But about the bit i've bolded; cant you see that therin lies a root problem?

No. The brutal dicators of this world should be deposed. We can't simply stand aside and say it is not in our interests to prevent the bloodshed. That is what happened with Rwanda and look what happened there. Frankly, I'd like the administration to be more neoconservative and overthrow the Burmese regime of butchers.

If we try to wait for the people in that country to uprise, we may have allowed thousands of more deaths.

The Ukraine really doesn't play into it. After all, they did have elections, even if they were rigged, and were trying to at least LOOK like a democracy. There are no such attempts in Saddam's Iraq or Burma or Sudan or Rwanda.


And the US didn't recruit OBL in Afganistan. That's another myth. The US supported the muhujadeen (later known as the Northern Alliance). OBL decided to get involved in the fight himself (the CIA didn't bring him in). Same thing with Saddam. The CIA didn't bring him into power. After all, the Ba'ath Party was SOCIALIST!

[child of Thor]

The world is just too damn complicated sometimes.

Who's myths should we believe? Anyway as to your reply Imran.
Ok i can see entirely where your coming from - bad people should not be given the opportunity to cause countless suffering to innocent people. We all agree on that one.
But the duplicity of the situation both the US and the UK finds itself in doesn't help in this mission. We've both been perfectly happy to support sadistic and 'evil' rulers when its suited our interests(Pinoche etc).

I'm basicaly after the same thing as you - i just dont think we have right to claim the moral high ground(especially considering our past) and then decide we know best for everyone else, especialy if that leads to the illegal occupation of whatever country takes our economic/strategic fancy.

This is how it looks. And the more we try your approach the more this will be born out.
I want that just and free world you do, i just dont see that doing it at the end of a gun will actualy bring his about. Being nice to people is much better in the long run.
Imperialism doesn't ultimately work - as the good folks of the USA should know, we certainly do over here in the uk(give us back our usa! ).

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the duplicity of the situation both the US and the UK finds itself in doesn't help in this mission. We've both been perfectly happy to support sadistic and 'evil' rulers when its suited our interests(Pinoche etc).

Since we were wrong once, that means we should never work for right? I don't buy that argument. We may have been wrong in the past, but we have to move on, say it was wrong, and say we are trying for right. When leaders butcher their own people, we can't let them think that they are safe. Even if that means we admit we were wrong in backing them in the first place! If we have to say sorry, then we have to. Look at what Pol Pot ended up doing! We can't say that is ok.

[RGBVideo]

child of Thor: Get rid of your "west = evil" prejudice and start looking historical situations (what actually happened, what different factions knew of each other back then, the motives of different people etc...) more objectively. I'm sure you'll turn up to be a nice guy in the end.

The US supported the muhujadeen (later known as the Northern Alliance).

I've always thought that "mujahdeen" (or however it's supposed to be spelled correctly in western alphabet) simply means "riding men" and it refers to all Islamic fighters... how would that exclude Taleban?

Read the thread. Neoconservatism can also be called 'Hard Wilsonianism', ie, spreading democracy and capitalism through the world by force if need be. It's the belief that talking about problems hasn't spread democracy, and we need to remove brutal dictators from their positions of power and institute democracy.

"Hard Wilsonianism" = Heh. Who came up with that term? It's not practical, too hard to pronounce correctly. Well, anyway... I have no objections, I think you're right.

[child of Thor]

@ Imran,

No of course we dont want a world like that.
Still i think your still failing to see the point i'm trying to get across? which is understandable as its the crux of the neo-conservitive ethos.
And past is sadly hugely important in all this - people dont forget injustices done to them.
You can force a dictator ship on people(its been done many times before). Force begets force.

But many people just fail to see how you can force a democracy on people, atleast not one that will stand the test of time. Support/encourage an upriseing if its there to support, atleast it will then have some semblence of legitamacy.

But really i know this isnt the only reason for the current and past moves in Afghanistahn and Iraq. Money/tactical reasons are the driveing force and this whole 'democracy' thing is the smoke screen. Its plainly obvious when you see what the founders and followers of the neo-conservitive(straussian too) movement have to say about their philoshopy(see my linked thread for details).

Wolf in sheeps clothing can only remain hidden for so long - soon the other sheep get wise to it

@ VJ,

well i just think we have to admit to our shady past, and if thats still on-going, how can we expect to be taken seriously in our mission to make a better world for all?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Frankly, I'd like the administration to be more neoconservative and overthrow the Burmese regime of butchers.

With what? You may say that the admin bungled the build up to war but I really fail to see how they could have gotten the Security Council to back the invasion given its reluctance and backpedaling. And I really see no appetite for it among the American people. This is the problem I have with the Neo-con view of IR. It keeps getting us involved in unnecessary conflicts that don't effect our interests and tie down our armed forces.

PS Can we please stop polluting this thread by talking to Thor about Neo-conservatism when his very sig (Republican=Neo-con for all intent and purpose. be afraid) proudly displays the fact he hasn't the first clue on the subject?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Money/tactical reasons are the driveing force and this whole 'democracy' thing is the smoke screen. Its plainly obvious when you see what the founders and followers of the neo-conservitive(straussian too) movement have to say about their philoshopy(see my linked thread for details).

It's because you take people who aren't neoconservatives, assign that label onto them, and claim look at what the movement stand for! It's like calling idiot radicals 'true communists' and saying, see Communism is run by morons (which is done often and just as wrong). The neoconservative movement, which is based on liberalism, has been twisted by its critics to mean interest based foriegn policy. It's incredible! I'm sure those who believe in interest foriegn policy (like Dinodoc) would LOVE that to be the case, but they don't like the neoconservatives because they aren't in it for US interests, but for values like democracy.

Neoconservatives didn't want to go into Iraq for oil or for tactical reasons. Read the writings about democratizing the Middle East with Iraq are the first dominoe!

[Imran Siddiqui]

With what? You may say that the admin bungled the build up to war but I really fail to see how they could have gotten the Security Council to back the invasion given its reluctance and backpedaling.

Look at Sudan. US leadership in the Security Council can result in some sort of armed intervention there. Though, frankly, I thought NATO, after Kosovo was going to be that force for change throughout the world. The problem is that because of our back and forth on why we wanted to go into certain conflicts, much of the world didn't trust us at all, and assigns, as child of Thor keeps say, the idea that the US was just interested in oil and its national interests, etc, etc. IMO, the view would be entirely different if the US was seen as a force for humanitarian change rather than just serving its own interests.

As for American heart for war... I guess that is where the Straussianism comes in (kidding, kidding)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Look at Sudan. US leadership in the Security Council can result in some sort of armed intervention there.

Are we talking about Southern Sudan or Dalfur? Because it was the AU not the UN that put the token force their and the UNSC is still reluctant to even impose sanctions on the country because of the economic ties 2 of its permanent members have with the government in Khartoum.

PS I'll bite. Can you explain Straussianism and how your comment applies?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VJ
Too bad the aggressor state won Vietnam war in the end (1975)

What are you talking about? We lost that war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

PS I'll bite. Can you explain Straussianism and how your comment applies?

Oh, Strauss is known for saying that philosophers have to conceal their true intentions from the people. Mainly because their intentions are really pretty radical (at least most philosophers). Therefore, concealing it, saves themselves from persecution and makes it more palatable to the masses. Or something like that.

The critics get on this and say that Neoconservatives are really hardcore Straussians and they say they want democracy, but their real intention is naked power grab. In the end, that is silly, because Strauss said the intentions should be hidden from the public, because the intentions were RADICAL.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The problem is that because of our back and forth on why we wanted to go into certain conflicts, much of the world didn't trust us at all, and assigns, as child of Thor keeps say, the idea that the US was just interested in oil and its national interests, etc, etc. IMO, the view would be entirely different if the US was seen as a force for humanitarian change rather than just serving its own interests.

EXACTLY now this is a problem, especialy when even potential allies can see this.

I want America to be that force for good in the world - its had the perfect oportunity. I just think its become so corrupted by greed that the goodness it could do in the world is a long distant dream, unless it does some serious in-house cleaning up first(and i mean pretty much the whole political/financial institutions).

And having the founders of the neo-con movement express that this isnt on the agenda doesn't fill one with hope over the current strategy. Thats about the sum of it.

And DinoDoc, i wont be confused by the 'shades of grey' approach, which is of itself part of the whole neo-con/straussian thing. The Republican party has become tainted by the neo-con movement. A spade is a spade as far as i'm concerned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You mean like the hundreds of thousands who fled S. Vietnam when the North took over? Were they some of the 'all Vietnamese'?

Out of a country of 56 million? It looks good on tv, but it was a rather small part of the population. In addition, you have to consider that a good number of those folks were either ethnic Chinese (and thus associated with the 1,000 year Chinese occupation) or were French speaking Catholic Vietnamese, and thus associated with the dictatorship in South Vietnam. These were people who'd been killing Budhist monks, slaughtering peasants in the countryside, etc. I'm not gonna argue that the Communists weren't brutal, but it ain't like the people who fled were all innocent victims.