American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 8 of 12
Quote:Yes, of course, it would have to be substantiated by declassified documents, wouldn’t it. Here’s the problem, I give you a list of countries that represent many of the US’s largest trading partners cross referenced with their democratic institution rating (not an easy thing to come up with), and practically every one of them is a democracy. Yet, the only thing you see are the few that aren’t? Why is that? You purposefully ignore 75% of the information because it does not suit what you want to be true. Now you tell me that you can substantiate outrageous claims with “declassified” documents. My guess is that you believe it is substantiated because you’ve selected the information that you will use to support it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, it's substantiated by documents that are currently being declassified, as well as Presidential papers that are being released. That's why I want to know which ones you want substantiated, because I could provide a whole list of links to declassified papers and so forth, but if you're not interested or you don't thinks that's substantive enough then I won't bother.
Quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.
Would a nice “I have a dream” speech have taken care of Hitler? Probably not, yes?
And we all remember those compassionate liberals who rallied against war in Iraq with slogans like “Saddam only kills his own people.”
Quote:You’re not sure what these lists are supposed to prove, huh? That’s conveniently placed ignorance! Let me remind you of your “point:”
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not sure what these lists are supposed to prove. That we CURRENTLY trade with democracies? Now, isn't that just a working-out by private business interests of their bottom line?
Quote:I supposed by this you mean that the US is on the side of 3 “dictators it prefers for business reasons” out of 20 and the rest are democracies? Because that’s what the evidence would seem to suggest, and it would seem not to support your supposition that the US prefers dictatorships to democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Quote:I don’t think the Chinese economy is really as big as the US’s, but it is very large, supplied by an enormous work force. Sadly, it still suffers from tremendous inefficiencies as a result of its communist nature. But you are right, if China ever does become a democracy, it will very likely become a huge player on the global market. I’m not sure it will supplant the US, but it may economically surpass it. In fact, Chinese may someday replace English as the Langua Franca of the Western World. And it will have the US to thank, at least in part.
Originally posted by rue:
After it was pointed out to me, and I did a little research on my own, I've concluded: China's economy is every bit as large as the US. But most of it is internal. Once they move futher onto the international economy, they will surpass and supplant the US. For anyone who liked being top dog, say goodbye to your comfort zone.
Quote:Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hello???
Finn......????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Are you having problems with disjunctives today?
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)
Now to address your list:
....
China -7.0, Japan 10.0, Canada 10.0, Germany 10.0, Mexico 6.0, Ireland 10.0, Venezuela 7.0, Italy 10.0, South Korea 8.0, Nigeria 4.0
....
Netherlands 10.0, Singapore 4.0, Hong Kong -7.0, 10, Australia 10.0, Belgium 10.0, Greece 10.0, Egypt -6.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, Panama 7.0, Netherlands Antilles 10.0
The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination. (There was a 7-year Greek military rule 1967-74 some attribute to US influence. There is speculation the US tried to influence the 1961 Canadian elections.)
Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).
Venezuela 7.0, Nigeria 4.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, and Panama 7.0 (average 2.5) have strategic resources.
But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)
I do appreciate your references.
Now for a brief recap my *referenced* examples:
1 example each of US actions: Argentina (coup), Bolivia (coup), Brazil (dirty war), Chile (coup), Columbia (death squads), Dominican Republic (coup), Ecuador (covert ops), and El Salvador (death squads).
But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.
And this is just the Western Hemisphere. This is more than "like 3" countries you said I cited. And, if you really need top be hammered with examples, I'll get to the rest of my citations.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy: Hello??? Finn......????
Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.
Welcome Back, and happy Friday!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where the US supports dictators, it is generally because the situations is politically fluid and the US doesn’t feel it is advisable to risk the instability of going against the political will of a certain dictator, or because the solution is between two factions, neither one of which are decided democratic, so the US goes with the one that it feels is the least unstable. With the exception of certain Petroleum producing countries, it generally does not have anything to do with business, because business prefers free markets of democratic nations, not the controlled markets of autocratic and anarchical nations. Even if the US did prefer dictators to democracies for political reasons, of which I have seen little evidence of that in general, it would still be even less likely for it to prefer dictators for business reasons. I’m sorry, but you’re assessment is obviously contrary to the evidence. The US cannot be said to prefer dictators to democracies for business reasons.
Originally posted by rue:
To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)
Quote:And what makes you think these countries are outside of US determination? Because the US does not seek to determine them? Perhaps the US doesn’t want to determine them. Most of these countries are liberal Democracies, and the US has no reason to seek to determine their fate, because the US prefers them as they are, democracies. Actually you may be right about China. My guess is that if the US could bring down the Chinese government through covert means, they would. Although that probably has a lot to do with internal US politics as well. But This argument is very, very weak where the other nations are concerned.
Originally posted by rue:
The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination.
Quote:Perhaps. The US determined Japan, South Korea, and Panama right into being democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).
Quote:Their on the list. Their just further down. The only thing we buy from them is oil and they spend a lot of Saudi money on US goods, so we generally don’t hold a very large deficit or surplus with them.
Originally posted by rue:
But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)
Quote:And you also haven’t explained why most of these countries you seek to point out are now democracies. There is a pattern developing here, rue. That pattern is that the US doesn’t seek to undermine or determine the fates of democratic nations, but does seem to try to undermine and determine the fates of dictators, and in some cases has determined these countries fates right into being liberal democracies. Ironically, I think you may be actually proving my point!
Originally posted by rue:
But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m sure you would have done just fine. I have faith in you.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Hello??? Finn......????
Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.
Welcome Back, and happy Friday!
I had a delivery that had to be out by today; that’s always hectic, and I have to go to Atlanta over the weekend on business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not going to go thru this in detail - it's in the history books for anyone with an interest. The US DEPOSED socialist governments, many of them democratically elected, to install dictators or juntas. Alternatively, it supported dictators to prevent national control of resources. The driving force was that preventing governments from nationalizing resources.
PS the 'goods' we export to Saudi Arabia are arms. Cozy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK and Signym,
For completeness sake, here's the rest of my list. I have to admit I did only cursory searches (country name[-i] cia coup) and selected the first impartial reference out of dozens.
CIA assasinations of foreign leaders were rejected as a tool of US foreign policy in the 1970's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36992-2004Apr23.html
"Is assassination a legitimate tool of foreign policy? Thirty years ago, a Senate select committee, after uncovering the history of half a dozen American plots to assassinate foreign leaders, gave a resounding no to that question."
However, covert-ops of various types continued on:
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/cia/index_body.html
The CIA’s emphasis on covert action has led the agency to support such world-class criminals as Panama’s General Manuel Noriega, Guatemala’s Colonel Julio Alpírez, Peru’s intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, and Chile’s General Manuel Contreras. In addition to the CIA involvement in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile in the 1970s, it has recently been disclosed that a CIA asset—General Contreras—directed assassinations in the United States against a Chilean official and an American citizen. ... Another operative on the CIA payroll was Peruvian intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, who was responsible for two decades of human rights abuses in Peru. The CIA helped Montesinos flee the country in September 2000 to avoid standing trial for crimes that included the massacre of innocent civilians in the early 1990s."
The Iran Contra blunder cost the CIA political support for covert ops, which reduced the number of active 'interventions' after 1988. Concomittantly, democracy began to arise around the world.
Grenada
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
CAUSES OF CONFLICT: The U.S. invasion of Grenada and the toppling of it's Marxist government can be seen as part of a greater regional conflict.
Guatemala
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/
CIA and Assassinations:
The Guatemala 1954 Documents
These documents, including an instructional guide on assassination found among the training files of the CIA's covert "Operation PBSUCCESS," were among several hundred records released by the Agency on May 23, 1997 on its involvement in the infamous 1954 coup in Guatemala. After years of answering Freedom of Information Act requests with its standard "we can neither confirm nor deny that such records exist," the CIA has finally declassified some 1400 pages of over 100,000 estimated to be in its secret archives on the Guatemalan destabilization program.
Haiti
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html
The Rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic in early February. It constitutes a well armed, trained and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l'avancement et le progrès d'Haiti (FRAPH), the "plain clothes" death squadrons, involved in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during the CIA sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
Honduras
http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html
Click here for a printable version.
The 1954 coup that deposed the democratically elected government of Guatemala has long been acknowledged to have been the result of CIA covert action. Recently declassified documents have shown a new, and more sinister light, on the CIA's involvement in an action that gave birth to some of the most brutally dictatorial regimes in modern history (see the CIA documents in the bibliography.)
Panama
http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Manual_Noriega.html
Manual Noriega
General-turned-president. Good pal of Papa Bush when he ran the CIA, in fact they were such good friends the CIA paid Noriega $USD 100 thousand per year to be a "CIA Asset" in Panama. They were still good pals even after the DEA figured out he was a drug dealer in 1975.
He made other friends in Washington, during th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I'm trying to find the crux of your argument and I'm getting nowhere fast. Setting aside discussion of whether the United States is better or worse than the USSR in terms of imperial behavior, a lot of your statements are hard to figure out.
DANG! I'll have to get to this later!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To continue...
I just don't "grok" you. I'm so in the dark I don't even have any questions- I'm still at the "HUH??? stage.
You appear to think that the United States has an important mission, a mission that is worth supporting coups, assassinations, and juntas:
QUOTE: This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did."
You said in more than one place, that we have to deal in the real world with real dictators and that we are doing horrible things to keep many countries as free and independent as possible:
QUOTE: " ...We do not do what we do because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse"
And yet, you've also said (in more than one place) that it's difficult export democracy, so if we're not exporting democracy, what are we exporting and what are we averting? What is worth the juntas and tyrannies that we support? What could be worse than that?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about this?
I assume that there isn't an argument on whether the US is the world's premier superpower (or one of the superpowers). So I'll start with that assumption.
Being the world's superpower, we can take on one of 3 roles:
1. sit on our hands and put on our blinders. Do absolutely nothing and hope that everything goes well.
2. Try and use our position to influence and bring about a better common good for the world/human kind.
3. Try and use our position to abusively, willfully and purposefully torture, afflict pain and suffering, and cause great calamity on everyone else who are not us.
Now, since obviously we aren't doing #1, do we think that we are doing #2 or #3? I think we mean to do #2, but we just suck at doing it most times. But for some reason, I think that there are a lot on this thread who thinks that we are doing #3.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME