American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq by Ghoulman

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."

Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.

I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'

Let me elaborate, if this hypothetical IBM CEO were to claim that he was to declare bankruptcy and I were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them. So my point is that it is disingenuous to claim that the US/Britain assassinated someone, when actually all they did was support their interests in this part of the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:39 AM

I'm really getting sick of these sureal analogies, e.g: supporting a political take-over involving the deaths of thousands is like supporting IBM when a new CEO doesn't do what you want. When human lives are at stake the rules really oughta change. It seems to me that it is exactly the kind of thinking that can equate "business deal" and "military coup" that fuels our government's overseas adventurism.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:44 AM

Odd that you seem to define murder as just another "business deal." Perhaps you are grossly missing the point, or one hell of an aggressive negotiator.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:52 AM

Oh, good gravy, no Finn, I'm pretty sure you have grossly misunderstood the point. Would somebody care to help Finn out here? I'm gonna be late for work if I write another line...

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[BI were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment.

It's this line I dont understand, and I think it's HK's problem too-Maybe you arent being clear enough so we're not getting you- If you are sending funds to help remove someone, by force, which involves a murder, how are you not causing it or condoning it?- By assisting (without being coerced yourself) you are expressly condoning an action, and I'm not sure how your argument follows-
If I want someone dead or gone, and I give someone the money and gun to do it, I'm to blame when that person gets killed- I have abetted a murder- They put people in jail in this country for that, look at the hockey player (from my home team no less) that is going to jail for a murder-for-hire plot to kill his agent- He was just providing the funds, yet ultimately he is considered responsible-
It's the same thing in this instance- Any country's government that provided backing for an action is responsible for that action and its consequences- Whether it protects our interests or not, it is still assassination- Now, I'm not saying that a country doesnt have to do bad things sometimes to remove threats or protect interests, its a fact of life- But, lets not bandy words about what it is- It's murder with the goal of protecting our interests- That's what we dont follow- You cannot be involved yet not be responsible-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:25 AM

GHOULMAN

Well, it's a vague article in a way. The language is very 1950s with the 'support' and all (must have been written by some old guy). That's why people get confused and forget the reality - people were killed, laws were broken, and the West lied about it.

Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

And that's the point. We in the West have a lot of blood on our hands and if we don't fess up to the truth and kick out the

in the White House (as they are the leader of the West... that is, the ones with all the money and power) and completely commit to our high sounding words ... meaning the words that start with WE THE PEOPLE...

Well, it means we will be living in a terrible world... oh wait. Too late.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:28 AM

Perhaps I need to spell out the context.

Soviet Russia was the most totalitarian, brutal and powerful regime that has existed, perhaps in history. The Soviets sought to conquer as much of the world as possible. In some cases, they sent an invading arming in to acquire that nation, but the problem they faced especially in the later half of the century was that the US/Britain military power and economic power combined (not military power alone) was enough to counter the Soviet arsenal. This, and this alone, maintained Western Europe free. To that end it was difficult for the Soviets to outwardly invade any nation on it wanted, as it sought to do in the early half of the century, although in competition with Nazi Germany. So the Soviets went with underground revolts wherever possible. Supply money and arms and big promises to the leaders of the Communist Parties of many nations from South/Central America to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. They were successful on many occasions, acquiring allies and puppet nations all over the world.

Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire. Afghanistan was a primitive, landlocked nation that the Soviets believed the West cared little about. So they simply invaded this nation. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand were more difficult. They were supported by the US, primarily because of the strategic importance in the oil trade. In outward invasion of either Iran or Iraq would have begun World War III.

The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible. The Soviets intent was to concur and acquire Iran and Iraq. If the Soviets had been successful in acquiring the Middle East as they had been in acquiring much of Central Asia, this would have put the world's largest oil reserve at their command, and likely would have turned the balance of power on the world stage. Ultimately the Soviets lost the Cold War, but it didn’t have to be that way. If they had acquired the Middle East, they may have won.

So that is the context under which this 1963 Iraqi revolt occurred, as far as the US/Britian involvment is concerned. The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site. How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision, not the US or Britain. That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:40 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.

"I didn't know that by giving them weapons, money, and intel on their enemy, that they'd kill him" is a lame ass response.

If you don't specify how the resources you give are to be used, then you might as well attach a note that says, "By any means necessary."

So, yes, if the US or Brit governments supplied money to persons who did the deed, they are partially responsible. (Unless you want to pretend that the governments involved are very, very naive and thought the people that they supplied with resources were going to print and distribute fliers and political advertisements.)

Now, maybe you support the assasination. Maybe you don't. But neither position requires that you stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not what it is.

--Anthony

"Liberty should not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:00 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.

Try to remember all actions can act in both directions

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.

I just got back from being gone all day, so I'll reply, sorry to bump this back up- But I'm curious as to why you'd throw this obvious insult into a friendly discussion- This is a fallacy, for starters, and it's insulting at the least- You're implying that I cant see the big picture because I'm uninformed about what went on in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the years leading up to it-

Sad to say, this is incorrect, and I hate it when people on this thread do this- It's not like we all wear badges saying, this is what my education level is, lets talk like this- I talk on these threads like I'd have a conversation, not academically- Trust me, I know the facts; my minor was in the Soviet/Post-Soviet political system-I'm not disagreeing with you that the Cold War Soviet regime was not a good thing, I agree completely- (for a good start, read McAuley's book on the Soviets, and I'd say literature-wise read Koestler's Darkness at Noon)-But we're paying now for our actions in stopping them, namely funding Afgheni rebels and Irani/Iraqi insurgents- Best way to fight atheistic Communism is to put radical religious groups in power, no doubt about it (look at what we did in S.America in the 70's as an example of regime change)-

But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-

Even when we as a nation make terrible choices that uphold the greatest good imaginable, we must admit to ourselves that we have committed horrible acts, and say that maybe there could have been a better way- We must always strive to do the greatest good and if we can, no harm- Otherwise it makes us no better than those we are fighting against-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your degree of knowledge, but that’s neither here nor there. The author of this thread did not say partial responsibility. The author said the US and Britain assassinated the leader of this country.

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.

Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?

SEVENPERCENT:
I fail to see the insult (or the fallacy) you are referring to, but it was unintentional either way. I don’t know whether you can see the big picture or not, and I have no desire to judge you based on your education level. I’m fairly sure, however, that with your implication that the US purposely installed radical religious groups to combat communism, you might possibly be missing some subtleties somewhere.

But this is what I really find interesting.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-

Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:01 PM

Quote:
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.

You misunderstand me- If one has to die so a million can live, that's a noble, lofty thing- But how that person dies is the point you are missing- If one man is murdered so a million can live, then we must also still say that while a noble sacrifice or just cause, that the man was murdered- I do see the difference between the outcome of millions dying vs. one man dying, but it still has to be called like it is- Does one evil act you commit compared to the hundreds of evil acts another commits make you equals? Of course not- But does that make your act any less evil? No, it does not-
We as a nation have got to realize that sometimes we make mistakes, or bad judgements- We unwittingly helped create the Taliban (by supplying the Mujahadeen freedom fighters), as well as Saddam Hussein (by funding his arms program to defeat Iran) and the various Ayatollahs in Iran (which we learned about in the 80's)- All for a good cause, keeping the world free from Communism, etc., but all done nonetheless- Now we're paying for many of those choices with blood-This thread started the discussion that when you support a choice of actions, for good or ill, that leave men dead, you are responsible for the blood spilled- Same with murder for hire, same with 'regime change'-
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you? I'm not sure that

Quote:
major bummer for you and your family

cuts it- In that respect, I think that is part of the problem with our foreign policy as of late- We are becoming so intent on the big picture, we are failing to see the human side of it- We forget sometimes that 'stabilizing a region' means people (children, often) have to die, and then cannot understand why we become disliked- We forget that while we are only trying to help, there are people who mistake that for aggression, which only makes it harder- Sometimes you have to knuckle down, admit you might be wrong (or guilty, or whatever), ask for help, and beg for a chance to do better- That's what is noble, and that is nearly impossible-

But doing the impossible makes us mighty-

And I apologize for taking your statement of the facts as an insult, perhaps I misread your tone- My pet peeve in face-to-face conversation is condescesion, as if someone has to 'explain' things to me- I get it, and I'm studied, or I wouldnt be talking-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you?

Do you think it matters? Do you really think the tragedy my family would feel with my loss is any different then the tragedy any other family would feel at their loss? And if you multiply that by a million, how can it possibly matter? One does not equal a million.

What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”

“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” 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. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world. This is why I’ve said over and over that the US does not exist in a vacuum. 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.

The perfect example of course is, “what if we had gone into Nazi Germany sooner?” How many millions would have been saved? And of course the 9/ll commission determined that the problem with American international policy, where it applied to terrorism, was a lack of action.

I could have told them that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”

“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” 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. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.

Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 3:31 AM

Double post.

And I say unto you brethren, that below thou shalt find the true post. Seek and ye shall find, but seek below this post, lest ye not find. Because if ye seek above this post, thou shalt not find, and if ye seek in this post, ye shall not find. Only if ye seek below this post wilt thou find. And find ye shall if ye seek not here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”

“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” 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. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.

Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."

First of all, I’m not talking about combat deaths. I’m talking about people killed by their government. Dude, you’re not even on the right page, but it’s kind of a dumb thing to say that we’ve only lost 5 soldiers in wars since Vietnam. We've lost many more then that. And it’s an even dumber thing to say that we killed those people because they were dark skinned.

It’s completely inconsistent, for one thing. If you’re intent is to scream racism, how do you explain Yugoslavia? All the people we killed there were white. There were, in fact, real reasons for those wars or conflicts. But I guess if anti-American rhetoric is your goal, you’re not really concerned with the real reasons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 5:18 AM

Finn, hey, the whole last couple of weeks in world events has got me pretty wildly upset. Sometimes the bitter ironies of our world are overwhelming. One sad consequence of that is my last post on this thread inwhich my substantive "rhetoric" was overwhelmed by bitterness and irony. Irony is a dangerously unstable thing online, I know (I know, I know). So I'm not surprised if my point got a little garbled.

So what was I on about? First of all, seriously, I really didn't intend my rhetoric to be "anti-american." America is still the best place to be as far as I'm concerned. We do have one of the freest presses on the planet even if they act like america's little cheerleading squad these days. People come here and their dreams come true a lot of the time in ways they never could have realized in other parts of the world. And, of course, we make the best TV shows

.

Rather, my rhetoric would more properly be termed "anti-war." I have nothing good to say about it. War is bad (horrifically, cataclysmically, psychopathologically bad), even when Americans participate in it. I'm one of these unless-they're-on-your-doorstep-threatening-your-kids-don't-do-it type o' guys (sorry, irony again. What I mean is that war is only justified when the threat is absolutely, manifestly immediate and direct. "Pre-emptive" war is just evil and wrong and going to war in Iraq--the way we went to war in Iraq--is one of the five wrongest things this country has ever done). And anyway, since we are the pre-eminant military force on the planet, in my view, we have been very, very bad in our time. Even the best country on Earth has room to grow.

The "only lost 5 guys" remark was a bitter summation of what I believe to be how the great mass of americans have seen our casualties in recent wars. The mainstream media have consistantly downplayed the numbers of combat deaths and yet any time one of our soldiers has been killed in a non-combat related accident it's on the front page. The not so subtle measage being, "American's only die by accident." When in reality as I see it, war is a place, primarily, where people are sent to die.

And please blame the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for the racism remarks

. We send an awful lot of poor and minority americans to foreign lands so they can kill and be killed by, mainly, people of color. And communists.

Finn, thanks for replying. The internet is littered with threads which end with one of my posts.

Hey, anyway, you ever seen this show--it was only on for like half a season--anyway, it's really cool and it just came out on dvd...

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 4:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What I get out of Finn's proposals is that as long as it's America doing the killing, it's OK, 'cause it is killing blessed with **righteousness**. But at the same time it's painted under the rubric 'the realities' of this world. So, Finn, is US action righteous and pure or compromised and sullied?

On a more practical note, the US has been careless about the friends it picks.

Saddam Hussein was a friend since he was bleeding Iran; the Taliban was a friend b/c it was bleeding Russia ... or, as what pointed out to me after a long list of murderous dictators the US installed/supported - "Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 21, 2004 4:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just so you all know where I'm coming from:

IMHO, the last thing the US wants is democracy around the world. Democratic countries might just - well, nationalize resources for the betterment of the people. Demand fair trade agreements. Deal with other countries we're in competition with. Join together for better economic leverage.

On the other hand, dictatorships provide guaranteed economic forms. The dictator has a vested interest in maintaining the system. And since dictators need guns and military support, the US, which supplies said capability, retains a level of control over the dictator.

It's the only thing that makes sense out of all the dictators the US called/calls 'friend'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 3:58 AM

Yes, Rue, I've come to very similarly sad conclusions about "the realities" of our American system. What we export far more successfully than democracy is capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism is not an ethical social system. It is not an unethical social system. It is not even a social system. (Maybe it's an anti-social system?) It is merely a very successful mechanism for perpetuating itself because it makes the people that run the system very, very rich and because it fosters the illusion--the dream--that those at the bottom can rise to the top. The system is chaotic enough for such a "rags to riches" story to happen every now and then. This is how capitalism gets associated with democracy, not because it is actually populist but because it creates populist dreams.

Our government's long standing opposition to communism is driven far more by capitalism than democracy. Communism is far more a capitalist nightmare than a democratic one. The communistic state is definatively a closed system, one less market for capitalism to exploit, and capitalism can't stand that. Far better for capitalism to trade with a dictator than to get nothing from the communists.

When I look at Firefly, I see what I would call "End Game Capitalism." What I'm seeing more and more is that capitalism requires two things: constantly expanding markets and desperate (therefore cheap) foreign labor. Left unchecked such a system advances like a terminal disease until all markets have been exploited out of existance. So the Earth got used up and they terraformed a whole galaxy of earths with a limitless supply of poor desperate workers.

Of course, one way to slow the process of utter depletion of the earth is to engage in wars. In a war you destroy existing infrastructures which starts the cycle over with poor desperate people and a lot of rebuilding which will make the capitalists rich. It's just the grimmest picture I can think of.

So, it seems that globally, socialism just doesn't fire the imagination of enough people for it to catch on and stick. Capitalism is extraordinarily seductive and very profitable for a lot of people. So how do we curb the natural tendancies of capitalism, reign it in, so that more people can experience its benefits and the planet doesn't get used up? Is it even possible? Is it possible to impose ethics on a system that is so seductive, profitable and amoral?

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I get out of Finn's proposals is that as long as it's America doing the killing, it's OK, 'cause it is killing blessed with **righteousness**. But at the same time it's painted under the rubric 'the realities' of this world. So, Finn, is US action righteous and pure or compromised and sullied?

So because the US cannot be said to be perfect any comment no matter how out of context that vilifies the US must be taken as true? What you are trying to do is force the argument into proving that the US is “righteous,” which is hard to do. And then you’re going to say that because someone can’t prove that, it means the US is the bad guy.

Well let’s try turning this argument around and see just how valid it is. How righteous are you? Have you never made a mistake? Have you never trusted someone you shouldn’t have? Have you never done a single thing in your entire life out of greed or fear or less then righteous reasons? Are you prefect, rue? Are you righteous? And if not, I guess that means that all you’re good intentions, all the good things you’ve tried to do, and all the reasons for why you did what you did are meaningless, because you can’t prove you’re perfect.

Just because the US may not be perfect does not mean the US assassinated someone, when what they really did is support a rebellion against someone, or that only 5 Americans died in wars following Vietnam, or that unfounded accusations of racism are true or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes, or anti-capitalist rhetoric is true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 22, 2004 5:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Here 'ya go Finn. This covers through "C" in the western hemisphere. Dominica through Venezuela are up next. After that it's on to Africa, then Asia.

I sure hope you don't believe this all happened by accident as the US was just tryin' to do the right thing.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/88.htm
In 1823, President James Monroe enunciated the first US policy on Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine warned European nations against interfering in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, Roosevelt's Corollary said the US would act as a "policeman", intervening militarily when US interests were at risk.

Argentina
http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,11439,1101122,00.html
"Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents."

Bolivia
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
"in 1970 ... President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by U.S. interests and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by U.S. trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin placed the U.S. Air Force radio at their disposal."

Brazil
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1375.shtml
"WASHINGTON (IPS/GIN) - A newly declassified audiotape and documents released Mar. 31, 40 years after the 1964 coup that installed military rule in Brazil, show that then-President Lyndon Johnson was directly involved in the decision to back the uprising. Also, the CIA had a heavy presence in Brazil at the time, and was implementing a number of covert operations designed to bolster the opposition to left-leaning Brazilian President Joao Goulart."

Chile
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
"September 11, 1998 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country ... because of CIA covert intervention in Chile, and the repressive character of General Pinochet's rule, the coup became the most notorious military takeover in the annals of Latin American history."

Columbia
http://www.progressive.org/comm999.htm
"You are unwittingly complicitous in some of the worst mass murders in the hemisphere today," says Carlos Salinas, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean. "If you liked El Salvador, you're going to love Colombia. It's the same death squads, the same military aid, and the same whitewash from Washington."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here 'ya go Finn. This covers through "C" in the western hemisphere. Dominica through Venezuela are up next. After that it's on to Africa, then Asia.

I sure hope you don't believe this all happened by accident as the US was just tryin' to do the right thing.

So what is your point now? That the US may have had an interest in coups against dictatorial regimes? That seems a little superfluous, doesn’t it? Since no one is denying that. I think you mihgt be a little bit naive, rue. The world is not Sesame Street. Dictators and oppressive regimes really do exist and coups really do happen in them. In fact, in most of the countries you mentioned coups happen like most people change underwear. And the US has an interest in many of these countries which they do not want to see fall apart because some crazy dictator wants to be the next to push into power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 3:20 AM

COWARD

Quote:
That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.

Yes, those pesky Soviets... killing off their entire population in death camps, 'tis truly horrible. Maybe, Finn, you should get your facts straight. Russia today has around 120 million citizens, I don't know the exact population the Soviet Union had, but trust me, they did NOT kill 100 million people.

Yes Stalin was a brutal son of a bitch, yes he deserves to rot in hell. But maybe you should read up on what happened after his death. Maybe you should also read about Soviet foreign policy in the post-Stalin years and you might find that it was a lot less expansionist than you think. Which is not to say that they played nice, surely they didn't, but just as they were "exporting communism" the US was "exporting capitalism". The US was definetely NOT however "exporting democracy", there have been examples of this named further up in the thread.

If you think the Soviet Union was more ruthless in the Cold War, may I suggest you look up the day it started: a simple plot to minimize Soviet power in China post WWII, this is well documented. The date was August 6th 1945.

Coward

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 5:36 AM

You are right. My apologies. I got a little carried away with the numbers. Let me rephrase that comment to be more accurate. (The population of the Soviet Union was 272,000,000 in 1985 and 208,827,000 in 1959.)

The Soviets along only killed some 60 million people, of which Stalin was responsible for about 40 million. The total world wide killed by communist regimes in all its varied forms is over 100 million, which is almost 3 times the number of combat deaths in all the wars since 1900. That doesn’t include the famines, which occur in unprecedented levels in communist nations, even in temperate fertile regions.

So I thank you for bringing that mistake to my attention, but it makes little difference to my argument. Communism was the greatest threat to modern civilization the world has ever seen, and preventing its spread was or should have been the foremost important principal of US foreign policy throughout much of last century.

As far as what the US was “exporting,” I would like someone to explain to me, how one, strictly speaking, “exports democracy” in the modern world? Basically we are attempting to do that very thing in Iraq and obviously one can image that if it were the US policy to, strictly speaking, “export democracy” there would be no end to the wars. Now I support the war in Iraq, because it is, strictly speaking, an attempt to export democracy, but it’s messy, as anyone would predict. And somewhat hypocritically, many of the people who criticize the US for not, strictly speaking, exporting democracy are the same people who throw fits when the US tries to, strictly speaking, export democracy. And not surprisingly they are against the war in Iraq, and one of the arguments that I frequently hear from these people is that the Iraqis should be left to choose their own form of government. So what the hell is the point with “exporting democracy” then? Obviously, this whole not exporting democracy criticism is a red herring, and the real intent is to attack the US or the administration.

The US exports democracy indirectly through encouraging a free market (i.e. capitalism). Free markets open up societies, both through the introduction of goods and information; this in turn is expected to promote free political enterprise and democracy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And even when it works, it generally takes time. China is a good example of that. Once a closed Stalinist regime, it has begun to open up because of the encouragement of free markets by the West. A great deal of work has yet to be done, who knows what the final outcome will be, but short of invading China and replacing their current Communist government with a republic, that’s the best we’ve got to work with. One thing is for certain, no matter what the final out come will be, certain people will always claim that the US is either not exporting Democracy, and when we are exporting we will be criticized for “forcing” “our” version of democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, those "regimes" weren't "dictatorial". They were democratically-elected governments that had an interest in land reform and in not being ripped off on their main exports. (bananas, copper, tin, oil). Apparently the USA just couldn't go for the idea of breaking up huge mostly unused estates (acquired by Spanish conquerors and handed down through military/ land owning oligarchies.)

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
Talk about getting your facts straight! Why do you always stick up for the big guy?? Where would YOU be in the FF 'verse?? Sheesh!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, those "regimes" weren't "dictatorial". They were democratically-elected governments that had an interest in land reform and in not being ripped off on their main exports. (bananas, copper, tin, oil). Apparently the USA just couldn't go for the idea of breaking up huge mostly unused estates (acquired by Spanish conquerors and handed down through military/ land owning oligarchies.)

Well, that’s the Communist argument.

You have a screw loose if you think those countries were democratic. They might be or approaching that today, hopefully they can sustain that momentum, but the last hundred years is not encouraging. South and Central America have, throughout most of the last 100 years, been hotbeds of political turmoil, coups and civil wars. In Bolivia alone there have been almost 200 coups, and the country hasn't even been around for 200 years. That's like having a coup every 10 months. It's pretty difficult to export democracy to a country that unstable, particularly when anything we try to do will be taken out of context and used against us, by people with shortsighted ideological beefs.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Talk about getting your facts straight! Why do you always stick up for the big guy?? Where would YOU be in the FF 'verse?? Sheesh!

I stick up for the facts as I understand them, not some socialist wet dream. I don’t really know where I would be in FF ‘verse. I know where I am in the reality ‘verse, and I'm happy with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Well, that's the communist argument"

Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!

No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.

So, quick, tell me-

What's the difference between an election and a junta?

The difference between democracy and capitalism?

The difference between tyranny and communism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Well, that's the communist argument"

Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!

No. It wasn’t a comeback, dude. That’s really the communist argument. "Power to the proletariat," and whatnot.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.

In some cases, perhaps, maybe the election was democratic, although that’s often suspect considering the degree of corruption, but even assuming that it was, that doesn’t make the country democratic. An election does not a democracy make.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 8:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.

What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")

Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.

In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 8:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.

What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")

Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.

In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 8:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?

See, that's what I said- You're always sticking up for the big guy!

In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.

That’s true.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")

Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.

US-backed dictators are OK? No. I don’t think I ever said that. I think that is, perhaps, what you might want to read in my post. I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion, though. US-backed dictators are not necessarily OK, but they are sometimes a necessary evil. I guess in an ideal world the US would never back any dictators. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be any dictators to back. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in this one, and we have to do the best with what we’ve got.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?

So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too.

What Brazilian President? Are you talking about JoAo Goulart? He was a communist dude. I’m sorry, but he was. And he wasn’t elected president either. He was vice-president, and the elected president resigned. That’s not really a coup. I guess in a part of world where coups are often the norm, that’s pretty democratic. I’m sorry to bash your hopes and dreams here, but South America has not been a bastion of democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:

As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.

Dominican Republic
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
"1930 Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic
1963 CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic
1965 A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this 'Communist rebellion,' with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua."

Ecuador
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/ecuador.htm
"In September 1960, a new government headed by José María Velasco Ibarra came to power. Velasco had won a decisive electoral victory, running on a vaguely liberal, populist, something-for- everyone platform. He was no Fidel Castro, he was not even a socialist, but he earned the wrath of the US State Department and the CIA by his unyielding opposition to the two stated priorities of American policy in Ecuador: breaking relations with Cuba, and clamping down hard on activists of the Communist Party and those to their left. ... *the article goes on to describe at length directly-involved CIA covert operations* ... in November 1961, the military acted."

El Salvador
The list of recent US involvements in El Salvador is lengthy, so here are references to historical articles:
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page46.html
discussion of "death squads" (UN Truth Commission on Salvadoran Death Squads)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm
"To defeat the rebels, (against a military dictatorship) the US equipped and trained an army which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of old people women and children."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:

As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.

All righty then. I actually do have access to the as of now still classified **US government** documentation as well as the currently declassified **US government** documentation. So you’re probably not telling me anything I haven’t already seen. From the looks of it, much of it has been taken out of context or just wrong. Although it is true that the US has been drawn into the currupt and often violent politics of South America on many occassions. I’m not really sure what you point is, but if posting this floats your boat then that’s okay with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?

Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.

Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.

These are your words, not mine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:43 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Just to add my two cents.

Anyone claiming Brasil is a democracy is full of it. Having lived through at least 6 Brasilian presidents & elections including an election on governmental reform, I can tell you Brasil is only a democracy on paper and in pipe dreams. Lula might be able to make the country a democracy but it would take a miracle.

I would even argue that America is not a democracy as you have an either/or government. The choices we have for President is MULTI-MILLIONAIRE FROM []Texas []Mass. Pick one.

As for the rest of it, I leave you with my signature:

PS. I am now stuck singing Irish songs thanks to reading this thread

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?

Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.

Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.

These are your words, not mine.

So? I think you're seeing what you want to see, and whatever that is, taking things out of context isn’t making it any clearer.

Let me tell you a story, rue. Do you know who Robert Baer is? He is one of those CIA operatives that you like to fanaticizes is out breaking fingers and vilely forcing capitalism down the throats poor happy communists. He was sent to Iraq to do what other operatives had been called upon to do in other places. To represent the US in a nation’s struggle for freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it. He worked in Iraq for several years. I don’t know how much of it is declassified so I’m going to keep his actions there a secret, but needless to say, his job was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He gathered intelligence. Boots on the ground, you know. That’s one of those thing that everyone says our intelligence departments are lacking. He helped organized the efforts of some Iraqi Generals who wanted to remove Saddam Hussein and stop the Stalinist madness that was destroying Iraq. Sounds like a good plan? Well he got as far as getting everyone together, and all he needed was the go-ahead form Washington.

Instead Clinton recalled Agent Baer and investigated him for the alleged crime of attempting to assassinate Saddam Hussein. This is the worst example of Political Correctness gone crazy that I’ve ever seen. Baer was accused of a crime for doing what his country had told him to do, remove an evil dictator at the behest of Iraqi oppression. Now this would not guarantee that Iraq would become democratic, but it certainly wasn’t going to under Hussein. So it was at least a step in the right direction. If Hussein had been removed, we might have avoided a war. Anyone with half a brain knew that if Saddam stayed in power a war between the US and Iraq was inevitable. Iraq was violating cease fire agreements, violating UN resolution, avoiding weapons inspectors, threatening the US and all the while with the ability to create or currently hold substantial stockpiles of WMDs. There’s no way we could have avoided a war, without removing Saddam Hussein. We had one solutions of removing Hussein that would have avoided the horrors of war.

You seem to want to pretend, somewhat naively, that we live in a simple world. So here’s a question for you: You want to promote democracy. So how would you promote democracy in Iraq? Leaving Hussein in power is not going to promote democracy. So that solution is out right away. Your other solutions are to remove him covertly, as Agent Baer attempted to do, or overtly as was done with this war. Now granted the war has a much better chance of actually installing a democratic regime because it’s much more hands on. But removing Saddam covertly might have at least alleviated some of the horrors, and possibly jumpstarted a move towards democratization, without the need for a full-scale war.

What do you do? Either way, you’re going to be damned. If you choose to remove him by war, you’re going to have to loose Americans as well as cause all kind of political problems in the UN, which was making lots of money of Saddam. But you have a fair chance of putting a real democracy in place. Or you remove him covertly, and there is a civil war, several thousand people die, at best a quasi-democratic regime is put in place. Suspicion of US involvement leads to conspiracy theories. The regime is a little less brutal then the last, so the assumption, accompanying the conspiracy theories is that it is “pro-American” puppet in the US's "impire" when in reality it very like is not. What would you do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, I'm not trying to be tedious here, but I'd like to recap your arguments if I may.

First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:

Really? That's like saying I back IBM. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them.

You dropped the argument in favor of this:

Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire.
The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible.
The US **backed** (that slippery word) parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.

(Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:
Iran ( http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/ "Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.
Iraq http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17468
It was Rumsfeld and Shultz who told Hussein and his emissaries that U.S. statements generally condemning the use of chemical weapons would not interfere with relations between secular Iraq and the Reagan administration, which took Iraq off the terrorist-nations list and embraced Hussein as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran.)

And you justify the US because

How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision ... That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags

And also

Should the US never act in the interest of its people?

Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:

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.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.

At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.

Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):

So because the US cannot be said to be perfect any comment no matter how out of context that vilifies the US must be taken as true? What you are trying to do is force the argument into proving that the US is “righteous,” which is hard to do. (I didn't introduce the concept, I did put a single word to it.)

Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:

or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes

Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.

Anyway, aside from racking up the references, I have a life to live.

Have a good remaining weekend, all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 11:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business

Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!

Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it. In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs. Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness. If you want a good example, check out teh Free Software movement. ("Free as in freedom, not beer.") We need humaniform parasites like a submarine needs a screen door.

So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!
.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 11:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn

Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.

Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".

Your heart's in the right place Finn, but that "whatever" is what's getting you into trouble. Thats' terribly sloppy thinking. When I asked you what was the DIFFERENCE between an elected government and a junta, democracy and capitalism, tyranny and communsim, you declined to answer. I spotted this weaknesst in your thinking right away. In your mind you string this all together... freedom/capitalism/democracy/ethics/whatever and godless/tyrannical/communusm/whatever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:

No, I never said that. Once again you’re seeing what you want to see. I said the US did not assassinate the leader of the particular nation in question, but rather may have supported the coup in which the assassination took place, which is something, as I pointed out, the US may do. I don’t know where you got the idea that it was dropped.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:

Previously posted by me:
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:

In some cases, that is exactly right.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.

Previously posted be me:
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):

No I didn’t abandon anything, what I did was prevent you from using the ridiculous argument that if something isn’t perfect it must ipso facto be wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:

or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes

Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.

Well, as I said if that floats your boat then I’m happy for you. One problem though. All the countries that you have referenced so far currently have democratic or emerging democratic governments, something they didn’t have just a few years ago. It’s hard to say exactly why South/Central America have suddenly become democratic, when only 20 years ago you could set your watch by the coups, and there’s no guarantee it will last, but certainly the US has been involved for a quit some time in this part of world, while these countries were dictators and while they are struggling democracies.

If indeed your conjecture is true, then it seems unlikely that we would continue to back these now democratic regimes, since according to you we prefer dictators. Furthermore, it would seems even less likely that, given your insistance that we enact coups to maintain dictatorships, that we wouldn’t attempt to remove these democracies as well. Yet instead we continue to support these countries even as they struggle with their new democracies.

Furthermore, US involvement in other parts of the world has helped to bring about democracies including: South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The free markets that we supported in Communist Russia helped to bring about the democratization of Russia and dozens of Soviet occupied nations and similar support is helping to open up China. We supported and continue to support the furthering developments in the struggling democracy in the Balkans and the soon to emerge struggling democracy in Iraq. Not to mention the dozens of democratic countries that we are long standing allies with, many of whom we fought to liberate. The US has pumped billions of dollars into South/Central America, helped to alleviate the cocaine trade that was causing so much instability in countries like Bolivia for instance, and helped to prevent the spread of communism. Today most South/Central American countries have some form of democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn

Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.

Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".

Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!

Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it.

But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs.

Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness.

Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land? Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick

Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!

I identify with Jayne 110%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2004 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.

Quote:
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.

No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.

Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.

No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!

Quote:
Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.

What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?

Quote:
Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land?

I think that was the whole idea of a militia.

Quote:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick

HUH??? Well, maybe farmers will sell their farm products, and fishermen will sell their fish, and truckers will haul it around, refrigerator makers will keep it cold, reseachers will post their research... um, nowhere do I see a spot for generals, oligarchs, and capitalists. So tell me, where do they fit in?

Quote:
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!

MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.

Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.

Figures!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2004 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.

Yep.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.

No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!

From the Marriam-Webster dictionary:
Landowner: an owner of land.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=landowner

Sorry, dude, but it implies nothing about those who work the land. And you did say that it was bad to support landowners, literally, not landowners who work the land. You said landowners.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?

Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrape, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that was the whole idea of a militia.

Someone’s going to have to run the militia. You can’t have a leaderless military.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick

They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry? Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues? This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.

Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.

Figures!

Jayne is cool.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2004 6:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmm... let's see... working my way backwards...

Quote:
Jane is cool

Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!

You said

Quote:
Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.

Actually, no, it's YOUR story. I never said "those in charge" you did:

Quote:
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!

That's part of that "generals, oligarchs, poor defenseless international businesses and WHATEVER" process. "Those in charge" is too open to misunderstanding. Please clarify what YOU mean.

You said about generals, oligarchs, and poor defenseless internationl corporations:

Quote:
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what [you] are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry?

Yes, but what do they DO- besides owning things, that is?

You said

Quote:
Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues?

See, there's that godless/ tyrannical/ backward/ unethical/ oppressive/whatever/ communism" issue again! Aside from the fact that these ideas seem to bump into each other in your brain a lot, do you have an argument as to WHY capitalism is the font of invention and progress and communism is not? Pretend I'm as stupid as a computer and explain it to me step by step. BTW- how do you feel about IP? Continuing the paragraph you said

Quote:
This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?

Sure, why not? heh heh heh. Anyway, you just said communism = subsistence level. How did you get there? (same as above)

Quote:
Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrap, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?

This is a GREAT idea! When do we start???

Actually, I never called those who got land "landowners", you did

Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.

They might own it in cooperative, for example, or obtain long-term leases based on their ability to work the land. I can think of a LOT of structures that aren't land ownership. Ownership, BTW, is a societal concept with all kinds of imposed limitations. For example, you can't own air. You can own a gun, but you can't do just anything you want with it. In other words, it's an artifical concept, not a "natural fact".

If you would respond to what I'm saying instead of what you THINK I'm saying, we'd get a lot farther. BTW, you have not yet gotten to what I think of as the ESSENTIAL function of capitalism.

TTUL

Edited 05/25/04 for clarification.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:53 AM