American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 9 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 3, 2004 7:44 PM

I dunno.

I did my own research (similar to Rue's) and came up with a list of nations/ rulers that we supported or are currently supporting militarily or thru CIA activity, or both:

Most of Western Europe in WWII
Mugabe (Congo dictatorship)
Suharto (Phillipines dictatorship)
Shah (Iran dictatorship)
Noreiga (Panama junta)
Marcos (Phillipines)
Hussein (Iraq dictatorship)
Saudi Royal family (Saudi Arabia monarchy)
Somoza (Nicaragua junta)
Pinochet (Chile junta)
Brazilian generals from 1964 (junta)

and the people we either assassinated or overthrew:

Mossadegh (Iraq, elected P, nationalize oil)
Joao (elected VP, land reform)
Arbenz (Guatemala, elected P, land reform)
Allende (Chile, elected P, nationalize copper)
Lumumba (Congo, elected P)

I could go on except lunch break is over....

it's gotta be more than we "really suck" at it. You can't be THAT consistently bad by accident, can you???

Karamov

RUE

Friday, June 4, 2004 2:27 AM

Hi Signym,

I compiled this history of Bolivia, a country where the US meddled but not as heavily as in other countries.

Creating proxy despots HAS to be a US policy. It's clear even in Bolivia's case where US actions are not as blatant as in other countries.

Over the broad span of its history, in a two-steps-forward one-step-back pattern, out of colonial rule, rule of the oligarchs, and military rule, Bolivia has painfully achieved a form of democracy. Progress has been by REvolution rather than EVolution.

In the early 1900's Bolivia was thought of by the US as a land-locked resource-bare country of no strategic importance (until the recent discovery of natural gas deposits).

As a backwater, it was relatively unaffected by US intervention until the 1950s. During the Cold War, Bolivia was important as a token in the effort to contain Cuba and Communism. Since the advent of US involvement, covert and overt action has ALWAYS been on the side of dictators and ALWAYS opposed to economic reform.

The government is nominally a democracy in that since 1985 chnage in governments has been passed via elections. Unfortunately the vast majority of people who support massive economic change are outweighed by the small number of uber-capitalists who support US-friendly policies (following the 'one dollar = one vote' formula proposed by others as the working principle of capitalist democracies). Since policy change has been stalemated, the economy is literally being run by the IMF, with the usual results. In sum, the country is barely in control of its own government, and not at all in control of its own economy.

Whatever progress Bolivia has made, seems to be under its own initiative, under economic and political pressures that could have overwhelmed any advance at all.

* marks important advances

The Plunder Economy

The Spanish heavily mined the area for silver (it provided most of Spanish Empire's wealth) and they eventually stripped Bolivia's deposits.
*Bolivia achieved formal independence in 1825. The Bolivian Constitution was drawn up by Simon Bolivar.
Tin mining began in the mid 1800's and continued till the Depression when demand and prices dropped (remaining deposits were also more expensive to reach). Bolivia later failed to develop nitrate deposits off its coast, and Chile invaded Bolivia and annexed the coastal Atacama area (1884). That annexation also deprived Bolivia of a coastal access. Shortly thereafter, it lost the rubber-rich province of Acre to Brazil (1903). From 1932 to 1935 it waged war against Paraguay and lost.

The Military Failure (1936)

At that point politics became radicalized. Ex-military members especially felt betrayed by the current military. *In 1936 a group of military officers carried out a coup d'etat and tried to institute a military variety of socialism. Standard Oil properties in Bolivia were nationalized and the social welfare-oriented constitution was adopted.
Such odd configurations as military reformist groups developed. Different forms of socialism competed. And all vied for power with conservative military rule.
When demand for wolframite (tin ore) spiked during WWII, inflation made living conditions ever worse. Miners were hyper-exploited. Chaos reigned.

Free Elections ... (1952)

*In 1951 a populist candidate Victor Paz Estenssoro was elected, but a coup prevented him from being inaugurated.
*In 1952 peasants and miners, angered at the coup, revolted in what became named the April Revolution of 1952, and overthrew the military regime and restored Paz to the Presidency. He introduced universal suffrage, nationalized the tin mines, redistributed land, and improved education and the status of indigenous peoples. During the period between 1952 and 1964 Bolivia had a free press, free elections, and the most stable government ever up to today.
But at the same time the US manipulated tin prices causing them to crash, and forcing Bolivia to give the 'tin barons' usurious compensation for their mines (1953). Land reform was not extended to large foreign-

SIGNYM

Friday, June 4, 2004 3:45 AM

WHAAAAHHHH!!!!

When I read your post I wanted to bang my head against a wall!!!!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 5, 2004 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I dunno.

I did my own research (similar to Rue's) and came up with a list of nations/ rulers that we supported or are currently supporting militarily or thru CIA activity, or both:

Well, your research wasn’t terrible exhaustive. I don’t have a lot of time to go into each of these in detail, nor do I want to, but I’ll simply make a few quick points to help balance out the argument.

You claim that Mugabe is a dictator supported by the US, yet Mugabe was elected as President of Zimbabwe (not the Congo), and the US supported him because it was believed that he would liberate Zimbabwe. He turned out to be another dictator, but the US couldn’t have known that, and indeed the entire international community was fooled. On the other hand, you claim that Mossaddeq (whom you incorrectly call the President of Iraq) was removed from power by the US. True, the US and Britain did support Mossaddeq’s removal, but he was not the President of Iraq, he was the Prime Minister of Iran and he was not elected he was appointed by the Shah. And after several years in power he used his appointed position to seize authoritative control over the military and declare an Iranian military state, not unlike the way Hitler took control of Germany. Neither Mossaddeq nor Mugabe had liberal democracy in mind. Yet somehow you’ve incorrectly drawn a conclusion that the US prefers to supports dictators, when in reality that is not what the information suggest at all. Rather the US supported one dictator and didn’t support another. It is not possible for the US to never support dictators, because often that is all that is available to support.

Somehow you’ve ignored that the US also overthrow both Noreiga and Hussein, two dictators you claim the US supported. Panama is now a democracy as a direct result of US action, and Iraq is moving towards democracy as a direct result of US action.

The US did not really support the Samoza dynasty. The US supported Sacasa in 1934 and Anastasio Somoza Garcia in 1935. But there was little US support for the Samozas in general. The US was indifferent to the Samoza dynasty.

The US did support Chile’s free market under Pinochet, and the US had no love for the Marxist Salvador Allende, but that doesn’t mean the US supported Pinochet’s regime. The US supports China’s free market, but one might be laughed at if one were to seriously opine that the US supports China’s communist government. There is very little evidence for the often exaggerated claims that the US toppled Allende or supported the martial law that follows. This is perhaps one of the biggest cases of left-wing propaganda there is.

The US does support the Saudi Royal family. This is one example in which you are correct. This is not an aspect of US foreign policy that I completely agree with, although I understand it.

The US did support Marcos. After all Marcos was democratically elected by a free and liberal democratic Philippine government, and even reelected. The problem was that Marcos, while democratically elected for 8 years, did not want to leave power, so he declared Martial Law, and became a dictator. The US couldn’t have known that.

Suharto was the president of Indonesia not the Philippines. And I don’t know of any US support for Suharto.

The US did support the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. It was probably one of the most liberal regimes that Iran has ever had. With the ‘78 Iranian Revolution and the establishment of the Ayatollah, Iran regressed to a totalitarian state, where freedoms were virtually nonexistent.

Finally, rue’s “history” of Bolivia is one-sided. She claims that the US is always opposed to economic reform and always on the side of dictators, but fails to adequately support these claims. The US has indeed supported economic reform in Bolivia. Huge financial US support for economic reform in 1956 brought massive Bolivian inflation under control, even at a loss to American investors, and the strongest economic growth in Bolivian

RUE

Saturday, June 5, 2004 3:58 AM

but fails to adequately support ... claims
Finn, I specifically included MANY urls. Anyone with an interest (which you apparently don't have) can look up versions of Bolivia's history.

On the other hand, you provide NO evidence for ANY of your claims, either in this post or any others.

You are a fraud.

SCOTTISHBROWNCOAT

Saturday, June 5, 2004 4:23 AM

Wow, this thread is Trippy.
Hell of a time to run across this after the ol'night of steady drinkin'
Easy on the conflict folks.

~SBC

God Bless America, and God Save the Queen!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, June 5, 2004 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
but fails to adequately support ... claims
Finn, I specifically included MANY urls. Anyone with an interest (which you apparently don't have) can look up versions of Bolivia's history.

On the other hand, you provide NO evidence for ANY of your claims, either in this post or any others.

You are a fraud.

You keep telling yourself that, rue. None of this makes your assertion that the US always supports dictators or never supports economic reform any less ridiculous.

A list of urls at the bottom of your post is not evidence. It’s a list of urls, which any fool with an internet connection can find just as easily as you can. You didn’t reference a single one of them. And even if you had referenced them, you still couldn’t have provided evidence for that ridiculous assertion, because no evidence exists. It’s a blatant falsehood. Anyone who even skims the history, the real history, of Bolivia will see immediately that the US has supported economic reform and has not always supported dictators.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 6, 2004 10:54 AM

Actually Finn, I think the term Rue used was "prefers" dictators, not "always" choses dictators. And when you said "Anyone who even skims the history, the real history, of Bolivia will see immediately that the US has supported economic reform and has not always supported dictators" it would be kind of nice if you would provide references to this "real" history so that we could "skim" it ourselves. Among other things, I'd like to see what kind of "economic reform" we supported. My guess is that it's the IMF kind, but without any references it's impossible to validate your (so far) unsupported assertion.

Mea culpa, oops, my bad... on my previous post. There's nothing wrong with my research, just my memory- I was typing away as fast as I could during my lunch w/o being able to check my references. However, my point still stands, so I'll correct and clarify a further down.

But you still haven't answered my question... well, maybe "question" is too focused a term... my bogglement over your viewpoint(s). Aside from the fact that you've contradicted yourself a half-dozen times in this thread (no we don't support dicators, well maybe we do, but it's to export democracy, which is difficult, so we're doing bad, but for the greater good) you haven't completed the thought- what is WORTH the rather long list of tyrants that we've supported? I mean, if it's for some greater good there must be one h*lluva reason that's worth hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives. Does it come down to comparing how many people were killed by one nation (USSR) versus how many people were killed by another (USA)? Or what?

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 6, 2004 12:13 PM

Ok, back to your shredding of my previous post...

You're right, I should have said Mobutu (Sese Seko), not Mugabe. The facts are that Mobutu deposed Lumumba in 1965, and Lumumba was murdered about a year afterwards. There are many USA papers (including Presidential papers) that describe Allen Dulles' orders to assassinate Lumumba. Mobutu ruled for 32 years as dictator with USA help.

Yes, Mossadeq was the PM of Iran (not Iraq, I've been typing so much about Iraq my fingers went on autopilot!). In 1950, the situation in Iran was the the British were receiving more in oil taxes than the Iranians were deriving from oil royalties. Mossadeq was a member of the Lower House (a Majli) amd the head of a committee on oil resources. The Majlis voted to nationalize oil production in 1951, and the Shah appointed Mossadeq PM as a concession to nationalist feeling. Mossadeq resigned in 1952 over a dispute with the Shah, but was reappointed after three days because of pro-Mossadeq riots. In 1953, Mossadeq dissolved the legislative bodies. In that same year, Eisenhower and the British created a plan to depose Mossadeq, called Operation Ajax, and restored the Shah to power. The Shah held power from 1941 to 1979 (except for 1953), so Mossadeq was not in power for "several years". The Shah wasn't all bad, he modernized some of Iran and broke up the landowning oligarchy in favor of peasants in order to consolidate his power. But his secret police- Savak- made even the CIA cringe, and I think it was inflation and corruption that led to his downfall. There are a lot of "might have been's" in Iranian history, much like Chile and the near-term future of Venezuela. If, for example, the British had offered oil terms that were the same as what other Mideast countries were negotiating (50/50 split) much of the drama might have been avoided.

Marcos's martial law lasted for 10 years. During that time, the USA continued to support him because of the presence of Subic Bay (known around the world as Pubic Bay, once a source of great revenue and great shame to Phillipinos).

You don't know of any support for Suharto? How about these quotes from declassified telegrams and State Deaprtment minutes concerning the invasion of East Timor and the killing of 100,000 civilians with USA materiel?

Suharto:
"We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor]

Ford:
"We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have."

Kissinger:
"It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction if whatever happens, happens after we return.... If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home. The President will be back on Monday at 2 PM Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned."

Bear in mind that the USA-supplied weapons and materiel were being supplied even while the invasion was taking place, and that USA law forbade the use of these weapons except in self defense.

OK, hmmm... moving along...

Ok, I'll have to get to Chile later. The invoveld included the CIA, Kennecot Copper, ITT etc.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 7:27 PM

Hello? (voice echoes)....Anybody here?

(Echoing sounds of slow footsteps, then a heavy thump as a large pack lands on hard ground. Sounds of straps being unstrapped, some unintelligible muttering, then... )

"Well, I guess I'll have to unpack over here..."

(Unpacking noises, things being set on the ground, muttering...)

"Maybe someone will come along...."

(Long wait, then approaching footstep)

"Well, hello! Come closer! Don't be afraid... I've got here some shiny pretty things to look at. Look, see, look at this, it's called a wonderment glass."

(A few shy, sliding footsteps)

"See here, you look through it, and everything will look like it really is... Take it, it's OK. You can't hurt it, it's unbreakable."

(Rustle of fabric, a long pause, a sharp indrawn breath, frozen...)

"Dang. I knew I shoulda saved that for the last."

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE