American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 7 of 12

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:02 AM

Double Post.

This never happened.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:16 PM

Finn, unfortunately I've been so busy I don't have time to give this thread more than a pat and a promise. So I'm going to jump in with just a couple of quick comments and get back to you in more detail later. You've been a good sport about discussing things, and I appreciate the time you've taken to respond.

First of all, did you notice the negative signs next to China, UAE and Hong Kong in your list?

More substantively, a current list does not reveal what the USA did in the past. Specifically, the United States undeniably supported Pinochet, Somoza, Shah Reza Palavi (sp?), Mugabe, Suharto, Marcos, Hussein etc etc. in various ways including sending in troops and/or arms, assassinating elected leaders, supplying logistical information and intelligence, paying provocateurs, planting false news items, training local troops in "interrogation" and population "control" techniques and so forth. Let me know which one of these you'd like references on- I don't have time to supply a whole list of links if you're not interested and won't read them.

I do find it interesting that the ONE COUNTRY in South and Central America that we DIDN'T get involved in is the ONE COUNTRY that isn't all f*cked up. (Guess which one and you get a prize!)

TTUL

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, did you notice the negative signs next to China, UAE and Hong Kong in your list?

Of course I noticed. I typed it in, Einstein. So what? Did you notice the positives next to Japan, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Ireland, Venezuela, Italy, South Korea, Nigeria, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Panama? What’s your point?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
More substantively, a current list does not reveal what the USA did in the past. Specifically, the United States undeniably supported Pinochet, Somoza, Shah Reza Palavi (sp?), Mugabe, Suharto, Marcos, Hussein etc etc. in various ways including sending in troops and/or arms, assassinating elected leaders, supplying logistical information and intelligence, paying provocateurs, planting false news items, training local troops in "interrogation" and population "control" techniques and so forth. Let me know which one of these you'd like references on- I don't have time to supply a whole list of links if you're not interested and won't read them.

Most of this is unsubstantiated, but no one has argued that the US doesn’t support dictators. It is the assumption put forth by rue and seemingly supported by you, that the US prefers dictatorships to democracies that is full of crap.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:09 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 28, 2004 2:09 PM

S'anyways, as I was saying....

Assuming that I can substantiate everything that I've said (and will on request) in the list of leaders that we supported, the list of dictators is very long. In the list of leaders that we opposed, the list of demcoratically-elected leaders is alarmingly high. Our dividing line doesn't seem to be whether the rulers were elected and enjoyed popular support or not, but whether they were pro-capitalist or pro-socialist. I didn't think of it, but Rue's explanation makes too much sense to ignore.

I know that this isn't just a historical problem either. Despite the fact that we're trying to bring democracy to Iraq (or whatever) we are quietly funneling lots and lots of $$ into Uzbekistan, which as I have said before, has all the charm of Stalinist Russia. UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies either.

And I'm reasonably certain that we're behind the instability in Venezuela (President Chavez). I saw a news clip that shocked even me, cynical as I am. I don't know if you recall, but about a 2 years ago, there were a series of anti-Chavez demonstrations that ended in the deaths of a dozen demonstrators. When I heard that, I assumed that police or military units guarding the main government building panicked and shot into an unruly crowd, and it looked like the demonstrations were going to get violent.

Chavez insisted that his units had NOT fired at the demonstrators (which you would expect him to say anyway, true or not). But one of the deaths was actually captured on video. The scene was a small crowd of demonstrators about 200 ft from the cameraman standing nearby a building. And I mean that- standing. Not shouting, not marching, or waving placards- just kind of hanging around. In the foreground was a woman in a bright yellow T-shirt whose back was to the camera. Because of her short hair and stocky build I assume she was middle-aged, and SHE was just standing around looking at the demonstrators, no closer to any of them than about 150 ft. BANG! She was shot in the back of the head. I wasn't surprised at the coldness of it all, but at the obviousness.

Now, my dad was trained by the British as a provocateur/ saboteur, and I'm not going to tell you some of the things he told me, lest I get in trouble in these paranoid times. But this has all of the hallmarks of the work of a provocateur. BTW, our biggest source of imported oil is from Venezuela, NOT Saudi Arabia.

Edited to add a couple of comments.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, May 28, 2004 3:40 PM

I think Finn has misunderstood Signy's argument pretty much from the get-go because he chooses to see it as an ideological argument (capitalism vs. communism) while Signy's is really a social justice argument (haves vs. have nots) which is informed by Signy's own sense of morality.

For me, the morality issue is at the heart of why these arguments get so heated and insoluble.

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.

Now, the argument about Jayne being the most honest of the crew may at first seem like a side note, but I think it's at the heart of the Tough Noogies point of view. The Tough Noogies argument stems, I believe, from a fundamental belief that the forces of corruption and evil are ultimately more powerful than the forces of justice, both on the level of the individual and that of society. Superior force will always win out. That's why the good guys have to play dirty. Tough Noogies may deny it to your face but he knows perfectly well that the fate of the human species will be decided by force, so "we" have to exert more force than "them" if we want to survive.

But if that were so, Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi, f'rinstance, would never have been famous or effective and Jesus Christ would not be the most famous person in the world next to the Beatles. Compassion is discounted by Tough Noogies, because Tough Noogies simply cannot understand a power greater than force.

"A power greater than force? What the is that supposed to mean? That's like saying a power greater than power, or a force greater than force! How stupid is that?"

Arguing for Compassion is a lot like trying to prove the existence of God or Love. Unless you've experienced it, you really can't see it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 28, 2004 7:27 PM

Hello???

Finn......????

RUE

Friday, May 28, 2004 10:01 PM

Finn,

Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade deficits. [1]
China Democratic institution rating: -7.0
Japan Democratic institution rating: 10.0
etc ...

I'm not sure what these lists are supposed to prove. That we CURRENTLY trade[-i] with democracies? Now, isn't that just a working-out by private business interests of their bottom line?

As Signym points out, what does this have to do with our government making a point of covert/overt meddling in foreign countries?

Just to open up a new topic, Finn seems to think that China's transition to capitalism is a good thing.

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.

RUE

Friday, May 28, 2004 10:22 PM

HK - I guess what the Tough Noogie people don't factor-in is that human advancement - speech, bowls and jugs, fire, tools, writing etc. didn't come from force.

Odd thoughts on the general topic - people who consider themselves religious, who are even anti-evolutionist, are steeped in 'social Darwinism'. The US needs that underlying myth of the inevitable mill of ruthless competition, so as to support the other myths on which our society is based.

Not that social Darwinism has anything to do with real evolution. "Sterility negates virility" - the meanest most competitive SOB who can't procreate is out of the picture. Even more, a mean FERTILE male specimen whose OFFSPRING don't survive is out of the picture, evolutionarily-speaking.

If ruthless competition and fertility were the soul of human survival, the poor women and children (in competition with the larger more mobile males) would simply be marginalized out of existance. And there goes the species.

So, there is a biological basis for morality, cooperation etc.

I would like to acknowledge that I was the recipient of most of these insights. They did not originate with me.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, May 28, 2004 11:49 PM

Hey, Rue. I think it's just fascinatin' the way science is influenced by social institutions. Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest" and it caught on because the 19th Century was the Golden Age of Unenlightened Capitalism. It gave scientific/cosmological justification for robberbarony.

Or back in the '50's Desmond Morris wrote the "Naked Ape" which is an hilarious evolutionary justification for old-school machismo.

There are a million other examples, but I got work to do.

Thanks for writing.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE