American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq by Ghoulman

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show.

You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?

Quote:
That sounds to me like those in charge, perhaps not.

Not those "in charge". In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.

Not necessarily.

You said

Quote:
Poor people with simple jobs don’t do much, do they?

But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?

Quote:
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.

They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.

Quote:
Capitalism encourages free market, free enterprise, free thinking. Communism encourages a subsistence level of poverty and easily controlled masses.

This is an assertion. I'll have to get back to this later.

"IP?"

Intellectual property.

Quote:
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.

You should know- that's what you've been advocating!

You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.

Quote:
That’s true. In any free society, there must be limitations to what one can do in order to maximize everyone’s freedom. But in the hypothetical society you seem to be describing, the only one allowed to own land is the government; everyone else must be poor farmers, fisherman etc. No on is allowed to gain any degree of independence from the government. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.

Gotta get to work. I'll edit this later. TTUL

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?

He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not necessarily.

Who else would be in charge?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?

You said it yourself. “what do they DO- besides owning thgins(sic)”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.

Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
You should know- that's what you've been advocating!

Really? How?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.

Yes, you did. Remember this:

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.[Emphasis Added.]

In other words the land they owned.

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?

Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.

Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?

------------------------------------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".

-----------------------------------------
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?

Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.

Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.

--------------------------------------------------

Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.

Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.

Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.

Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?

-------------------------
Finn:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Signy: You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Finn: Really? How?
Signy: By supporting/ excusing/ rationalizing every military junta and dictatorship that we put into power with the concommitant death of millions of (usually) peasants and slum-dwellers.

------------------------------
SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Finn: Yes, you did. Remember this:
"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 other words the land they owned.
Signy: That's not what I meant, so let me clarify that statement- "...on the land they would have had been able to use, had someone not stolen it."

Well, lunch break's over ! TTUL!

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?

Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.

Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?

Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".

In other words, the government is the only one in charge.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?

Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.

Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.

Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.

Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.

Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.

Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?

No. What I am saying is that if you exclude power from the private sector then the Government is the sole proprietor of authority. Competition, not just between the wealthy, but also between anyone willing to compete.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Signy: You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Finn: Really? How?
Signy: By supporting/ excusing/ rationalizing every military junta and dictatorship that we put into power with the concommitant death of millions of (usually) peasants and slum-dwellers.

Aside from your obvious exaggeration, supporting a side in a civil war is not the same thing as putting them in power or condoning their actions. But how does this differ from you supporting/excusing/rationalizing communist totalitarianism?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Finn: Yes, you did. Remember this:
"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 other words the land they owned.
Signy: That's not what I meant, so let me clarify that statement- "...on the land they would have had been able to use, had someone not stolen it."

Where these poor peasants forced to live in the sea? Or float in the air? If not, then they are still using the land, just under a different dictator? I don’t see why you would have a problem with that. And how does one steal land, if that land is never owned?

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:40 PM

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

Back to my original contention:

Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.

The US installs, and/or supports, and/or occasionally deposes dictators. The CIA did the job before it was reined in and forbidden to assassinate, foment, advise, supply etc. And before the CIA, the army, navy and marines were pressed into service to install, support and topple foreign governments. In some cases it dates back to the early 1900's - before the Russian Revolution, before the Cold War, and before anti-Communism became a convenient rhetorical bludgeon.

This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.

Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. And you'll conveniently gloss over that fact that in Central and South America US-supported death squads killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, coincidentally supporting regimes of various kinds. And that, like Korea, South American democracy emerged after US influence diminished. Now maybe you'll paint a happy picture of how pleasant Russia is, and keep silent about life expectancy in the new Capitalist Paradise.

I know to much for that.

I provide references which are of necessity incomplete. I'm not about to publish a book here. But anyone with an interest can use my references to HISTORICAL events to learn more. And Google will list many, many resources which are balanced in the aggregate.

On the other hand, while I see a lot of rhetoric and what looks like disinformation, I see nothing in the way of substantiation for opposing claims. It appears that my position prevails.

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RE: Jayne
The more or less entire xchng goes-

Signy: Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Finn: That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show
SignyM: You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn: He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
Finn: Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.

Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?

---------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
Finn: In other words, the government is the only one in charge.

Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?

-------------------
Signy: But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscommunication here- I can't figure out your answer.
Finn: Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?

Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"
-----------------

Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.

Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?
Finn: No. What I am saying is that if you exclude power from the private sector then the Government is the sole proprietor of authority. Competition, not just between the wealthy, but also between anyone willing to compete.

Signy: So what you're saying is that competition keeps things in check.

---------------------
Finn:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Signy: You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Finn: Really? How?
Signy: By supporting/ excusing/ rationalizing every military junta and dictatorship that we put into power with the concommitant death of millions of (usually) peasants and slum-dwellers.
Finn:Aside from your obvious exaggeration, supporting a side in a civil war is not the same thing as putting them in power or condoning their actions. But how does this differ from you supporting/excusing/rationalizing communist totalitarianism?

Signy: Where's the exaggeration? Hmmm.. let's see. A civil war that pits an elected president and the majority of a population on one side, and an army and the CIA on the other side.

Which communist totalitarian regimes have I supported???

-------------------------------

Signy: You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Finn: Yes, you did. Remember this:
"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 other words the land they owned.
Signy: That's not what I meant, so let me clarify that statement- "...on the land they would have had been able to use, had someone not stolen it." Where these poor peasants forced to live in the sea? Or float in the air? If not, then they are still using the land, just under a different dictator? I don’t see why you would have a problem with that. And how does one steal land, if that land is never owned?

All FIREFLY related graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2003 Mutant Enemy, Inc. and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?

Exactly as it was said.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?

No, and they shouldn't be in charge of whether or not I buy land or whether or not I run a corporation.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"

This is your story. You tell me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: So what you're saying is that competition keeps things in check.

More or less.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Where's the exaggeration? Hmmm.. let's see. A civil war that pits an elected president and the majority of a population on one side, and an army and the CIA on the other side.

That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy.

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:18 PM

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

"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."

That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.

Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.

All of which the US played or plays a crucial role in the emergence of democracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.

I don’t agree, because I think the facts clearly state otherwise.

Democratic institution rating (10 most democratic, -10 most autocratic.) [3]

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
Canada. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Germany. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 6.0
Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Venezuela. . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
South Korea. . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 8.0
Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 4.0

Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade Surplus[2]
Netherlands. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Singapore. . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 4.0(Malaysia) *
Hong Kong. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -7.0, 10(China, UK)**
Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -6.0
United Arab Emirates. . Democratic institution rating: -8.0
Panama. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Netherlands Antilles. . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0 (Netherlands)***

*No independent rating was found for Singapore. Singapore is an independent City-State on the southern tip of Malaysia. Its form of government is described as a parliamentary republic.
** No independent rating was found for Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a city-state that for most of last century was a British territory, but now has been handed over to China as a special administrative region of China. Its form of government is described as a limited democracy.
*** Netherlands Antilles is a group of Caribbean Islands, most of which are territories of the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a Liberal Democracy, described as a Constitutional Monarchy. Aruba is the only independent nation in the Netherlands Antilles. Aruba’s form of government is described as a parliamentary democracy.
[1] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html
[2] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/surplus.html
[3] Polity IV Project, University of Maryland, at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/index.htm#polity via ciesin.org

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. .

Waned? Yes, US influence is really down the tubes, isn’t it? No actually it occurred because of something called the Korean War, in which the US fought off the Stalinist dictatorial regime that now presides over North Korea, and helped to produce the now Democratic South Korea. There is no more blatant and obvious example of US support for Democracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you'll conveniently gloss over that fact that in Central and South America US-supported death squads killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, coincidentally supporting regimes of various kinds.

Terrible things happen in anarchical nations. I have no intentions of glossing over that. I also have no intentions of glossing over the fact that much of South and Central America, that you claim the US supports because it prefers dictators, is now largely democratic. Something you seem fervently intent on ignoring.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And that, like Korea, South American democracy emerged after US influence diminished.

Prove it. This is pure conjecture on your part, seemingly designed to supplant obvious evidence against your assertion. Completely unsupported. The reality is that US influence has not waned at all. And there is no evidence of any such diminished US influence. In fact, the last twenty years have seen the US increase in power to the point where it is now referred to as the world’s only superpower.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now maybe you'll paint a happy picture of how pleasant Russia is, and keep silent about life expectancy in the new Capitalist Paradise.

Irrelevant. The fact is Russia is now a democracy, in part as a direct result of actions taken by the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It appears that my position prevails.

That's the thing about preconceived notions. They have a way of seeming to prevail, despite incomplete evidence and evidence to the contrary.

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."

That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.

Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.

It is supported. It is supported by the fact that the comment it is in response to, fails to produce any evidence for an outrageous claim. The burden is not on my to find support for your point of view. I’m sorry, but that is something that you’ll have to come up with on your own.

I hate to break it to you, rue, but making a list of, largely, democratic nations as evidence that the US prefers dictators is hardly what one might call “bona fide facts.”

And I think I’ve responded to every point you’ve made so far. It’s hardly fair to say I’ve run from any of your comments.

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:02 PM

Double Post.

This never happened.

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

Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:41 AM

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.

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

Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 5:40 AM

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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hello???

Finn......????

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 12:01 PM

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

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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 12:22 PM

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

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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 1:49 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.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, it's substantiated by documents that are currently being declassified, as well as Presidential papers that are being released. That's why I want to know which ones you want substantiated, because I could provide a whole list of links to declassified papers and so forth, but if you're not interested or you don't thinks that's substantive enough then I won't bother.

Yes, of course, it would have to be substantiated by declassified documents, wouldn’t it. Here’s the problem, I give you a list of countries that represent many of the US’s largest trading partners cross referenced with their democratic institution rating (not an easy thing to come up with), and practically every one of them is a democracy. Yet, the only thing you see are the few that aren’t? Why is that? You purposefully ignore 75% of the information because it does not suit what you want to be true. Now you tell me that you can substantiate outrageous claims with “declassified” documents. My guess is that you believe it is substantiated because you’ve selected the information that you will use to support it.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.

Interesting.

Would a nice “I have a dream” speech have taken care of Hitler? Probably not, yes?

And we all remember those compassionate liberals who rallied against war in Iraq with slogans like “Saddam only kills his own people.”

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

You’re not sure what these lists are supposed to prove, huh? That’s conveniently placed ignorance! Let me remind you of your “point:”

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.

I supposed by this you mean that the US is on the side of 3 “dictators it prefers for business reasons” out of 20 and the rest are democracies? Because that’s what the evidence would seem to suggest, and it would seem not to support your supposition that the US prefers dictatorships to democracies.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
After it was pointed out to me, and I did a little research on my own, I've concluded: China's economy is every bit as large as the US. But most of it is internal. Once they move futher onto the international economy, they will surpass and supplant the US. For anyone who liked being top dog, say goodbye to your comfort zone.

I don’t think the Chinese economy is really as big as the US’s, but it is very large, supplied by an enormous work force. Sadly, it still suffers from tremendous inefficiencies as a result of its communist nature. But you are right, if China ever does become a democracy, it will very likely become a huge player on the global market. I’m not sure it will supplant the US, but it may economically surpass it. In fact, Chinese may someday replace English as the Langua Franca of the Western World. And it will have the US to thank, at least in part.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hello???

Finn......????

Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 5:16 PM

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

Finn,

Are you having problems with disjunctives today?

Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.

To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)

Now to address your list:
....
China -7.0, Japan 10.0, Canada 10.0, Germany 10.0, Mexico 6.0, Ireland 10.0, Venezuela 7.0, Italy 10.0, South Korea 8.0, Nigeria 4.0
....
Netherlands 10.0, Singapore 4.0, Hong Kong -7.0, 10, Australia 10.0, Belgium 10.0, Greece 10.0, Egypt -6.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, Panama 7.0, Netherlands Antilles 10.0

The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination. (There was a 7-year Greek military rule 1967-74 some attribute to US influence. There is speculation the US tried to influence the 1961 Canadian elections.)

Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).

Venezuela 7.0, Nigeria 4.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, and Panama 7.0 (average 2.5) have strategic resources.

But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)

I do appreciate your references.

Now for a brief recap my *referenced* examples:
1 example each of US actions: Argentina (coup), Bolivia (coup), Brazil (dirty war), Chile (coup), Columbia (death squads), Dominican Republic (coup), Ecuador (covert ops), and El Salvador (death squads).

But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.

And this is just the Western Hemisphere. This is more than "like 3" countries you said I cited. And, if you really need top be hammered with examples, I'll get to the rest of my citations.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 6:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Signy: Hello??? Finn......????

Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.

Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.

Welcome Back, and happy Friday!

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)

Where the US supports dictators, it is generally because the situations is politically fluid and the US doesn’t feel it is advisable to risk the instability of going against the political will of a certain dictator, or because the solution is between two factions, neither one of which are decided democratic, so the US goes with the one that it feels is the least unstable. With the exception of certain Petroleum producing countries, it generally does not have anything to do with business, because business prefers free markets of democratic nations, not the controlled markets of autocratic and anarchical nations. Even if the US did prefer dictators to democracies for political reasons, of which I have seen little evidence of that in general, it would still be even less likely for it to prefer dictators for business reasons. I’m sorry, but you’re assessment is obviously contrary to the evidence. The US cannot be said to prefer dictators to democracies for business reasons.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination.

And what makes you think these countries are outside of US determination? Because the US does not seek to determine them? Perhaps the US doesn’t want to determine them. Most of these countries are liberal Democracies, and the US has no reason to seek to determine their fate, because the US prefers them as they are, democracies. Actually you may be right about China. My guess is that if the US could bring down the Chinese government through covert means, they would. Although that probably has a lot to do with internal US politics as well. But This argument is very, very weak where the other nations are concerned.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).

Perhaps. The US determined Japan, South Korea, and Panama right into being democracies.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)

Their on the list. Their just further down. The only thing we buy from them is oil and they spend a lot of Saudi money on US goods, so we generally don’t hold a very large deficit or surplus with them.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.

And you also haven’t explained why most of these countries you seek to point out are now democracies. There is a pattern developing here, rue. That pattern is that the US doesn’t seek to undermine or determine the fates of democratic nations, but does seem to try to undermine and determine the fates of dictators, and in some cases has determined these countries fates right into being liberal democracies. Ironically, I think you may be actually proving my point!

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Signy: Hello??? Finn......????

Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.

Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.

Welcome Back, and happy Friday!

I’m sure you would have done just fine. I have faith in you.

I had a delivery that had to be out by today; that’s always hectic, and I have to go to Atlanta over the weekend on business.

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

Friday, May 28, 2004 7:13 PM

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

Not going to go thru this in detail - it's in the history books for anyone with an interest. The US DEPOSED socialist governments, many of them democratically elected, to install dictators or juntas. Alternatively, it supported dictators to prevent national control of resources. The driving force was that preventing governments from nationalizing resources.

PS the 'goods' we export to Saudi Arabia are arms. Cozy.

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

Saturday, May 29, 2004 10:29 AM

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

HK and Signym,

For completeness sake, here's the rest of my list. I have to admit I did only cursory searches (country name[-i] cia coup) and selected the first impartial reference out of dozens.

CIA assasinations of foreign leaders were rejected as a tool of US foreign policy in the 1970's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36992-2004Apr23.html
"Is assassination a legitimate tool of foreign policy? Thirty years ago, a Senate select committee, after uncovering the history of half a dozen American plots to assassinate foreign leaders, gave a resounding no to that question."
However, covert-ops of various types continued on:
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/cia/index_body.html
The CIA’s emphasis on covert action has led the agency to support such world-class criminals as Panama’s General Manuel Noriega, Guatemala’s Colonel Julio Alpírez, Peru’s intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, and Chile’s General Manuel Contreras. In addition to the CIA involvement in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile in the 1970s, it has recently been disclosed that a CIA asset—General Contreras—directed assassinations in the United States against a Chilean official and an American citizen. ... Another operative on the CIA payroll was Peruvian intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, who was responsible for two decades of human rights abuses in Peru. The CIA helped Montesinos flee the country in September 2000 to avoid standing trial for crimes that included the massacre of innocent civilians in the early 1990s."

The Iran Contra blunder cost the CIA political support for covert ops, which reduced the number of active 'interventions' after 1988. Concomittantly, democracy began to arise around the world.

Grenada
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
CAUSES OF CONFLICT: The U.S. invasion of Grenada and the toppling of it's Marxist government can be seen as part of a greater regional conflict.

Guatemala
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/
CIA and Assassinations:
The Guatemala 1954 Documents
These documents, including an instructional guide on assassination found among the training files of the CIA's covert "Operation PBSUCCESS," were among several hundred records released by the Agency on May 23, 1997 on its involvement in the infamous 1954 coup in Guatemala. After years of answering Freedom of Information Act requests with its standard "we can neither confirm nor deny that such records exist," the CIA has finally declassified some 1400 pages of over 100,000 estimated to be in its secret archives on the Guatemalan destabilization program.

Haiti
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html
The Rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic in early February. It constitutes a well armed, trained and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l'avancement et le progrès d'Haiti (FRAPH), the "plain clothes" death squadrons, involved in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during the CIA sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Honduras
http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html
Click here for a printable version.

The 1954 coup that deposed the democratically elected government of Guatemala has long been acknowledged to have been the result of CIA covert action. Recently declassified documents have shown a new, and more sinister light, on the CIA's involvement in an action that gave birth to some of the most brutally dictatorial regimes in modern history (see the CIA documents in the bibliography.)

Panama
http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Manual_Noriega.html
Manual Noriega
General-turned-president. Good pal of Papa Bush when he ran the CIA, in fact they were such good friends the CIA paid Noriega $USD 100 thousand per year to be a "CIA Asset" in Panama. They were still good pals even after the DEA figured out he was a drug dealer in 1975.
He made other friends in Washington, during the Reagan presidency he was good pals with Oliver North, and Panama was a way-station for illegal arms on their way to the Contras and illegal cocaine on its way back to the US.

Peru
http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/peru01.html
The man who engineered the coup, sometimes referred to as Fujimori's Rasputin, is Vladimiro Montesinos. The Madrid daily "La Vanguardia" called him "the second most powerful man in Peru, after the president." (11/05/92) This may turn out to be an underestimation.
Montesinos was an Army artillery captain and aide to one of Peru's leading generals when he was recruited by the CIA, according to Peruvian Army Major Jose Fernandez Slavatecci, in his autobiography "Yo Acuso (I accuse)".

Uruguay
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0404/136944.html
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) - Newly declassified U.S. documents show the extent of American willingness to provide aid to Brazil's generals during the 1964 coup that ushered in 21 years of often bloody military rule.

Venezuela
There was so much on current Venezuela events I had a hard time finding historical ones.

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

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 3:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I'm trying to find the crux of your argument and I'm getting nowhere fast. Setting aside discussion of whether the United States is better or worse than the USSR in terms of imperial behavior, a lot of your statements are hard to figure out.

DANG! I'll have to get to this later!

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

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 12:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To continue...

I just don't "grok" you. I'm so in the dark I don't even have any questions- I'm still at the "HUH??? stage.

You appear to think that the United States has an important mission, a mission that is worth supporting coups, assassinations, and juntas:
QUOTE: This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did."

You said in more than one place, that we have to deal in the real world with real dictators and that we are doing horrible things to keep many countries as free and independent as possible:
QUOTE: " ...We do not do what we do because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse"

And yet, you've also said (in more than one place) that it's difficult export democracy, so if we're not exporting democracy, what are we exporting and what are we averting? What is worth the juntas and tyrannies that we support? What could be worse than that?

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

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 3:39 PM

JASONZZZ

How about this?

I assume that there isn't an argument on whether the US is the world's premier superpower (or one of the superpowers). So I'll start with that assumption.

Being the world's superpower, we can take on one of 3 roles:

1. sit on our hands and put on our blinders. Do absolutely nothing and hope that everything goes well.

2. Try and use our position to influence and bring about a better common good for the world/human kind.

3. Try and use our position to abusively, willfully and purposefully torture, afflict pain and suffering, and cause great calamity on everyone else who are not us.

Now, since obviously we aren't doing #1, do we think that we are doing #2 or #3? I think we mean to do #2, but we just suck at doing it most times. But for some reason, I think that there are a lot on this thread who thinks that we are doing #3.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2004 9:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

Thursday, June 3, 2004 4:27 PM

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

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-owned landholdings, and oil holdings were not even considered for nationalization. While Bolivia struggled to meet international demands to encourage investment, the economy staggered.

US Policy of Containment (the Cuba threat) mid-1950's and On

And in the background, (1957) the American Counter Intelligence Corps helped Klaus Barbie, an ex-Gestapo war criminal, to escape to Bolivia. There he worked as a US agent, assisting military regimes to come to power and stay in power, through brutal tactics.

If It's Tuesday, It Must be Another Military Dictatorship

In 1964 Rene Barrientos, who some claim was recruited by the CIA, staged a military coup. His first action was to allow Gulf Oil to export petroleum and gas. They rewarded him with a helicopter. Barrientos put Barbie in charge of internal security where he ruthlessly and brutally put down strikes and demonstrations, slaughtering miners and their families. Within two the years US Intelligence presence was demonstrably heavy. By 1966 the CIA was pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into maintaining the regime. Barrientos alone received $800,000 directly from the CIA in a two year period (66-68). In 1967 "Ché Guevara ...is captured and executed by Bolivian soldiers trained, equipped and guided by US Green Beret and CIA operatives." On a trajectory to be a mover-and-shaker in Bolivian history, Barrientos met an untimely end in 1969 when, ironically, his Gulf Oil-supplied helicopter crashed.

"Military regimes subsequently come and go with monotonous regularity until the election of the leftist civilian Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) under Dr Hernan Siles Zuazo in 1982."

There were military dictators who did reform the economy. There were military dictators who supported the wealthy. There were those who simply supported the military. There were dictators who said they supported economic reform, but didn't. In other words, past governments have to be labelled by actions, and not by origins or rhetoric.

Vice President Salinas succeeded Barrientos, but he was quickly ousted by the army who put General Alfredo Ovando Candía in the presidency.

*In 1969 a leftist faction of the military came to power under Juan Torres and nationalized more industries, including oil, and gave benefits to the working class,
but they lost power in 1971 to General Hugo Banzer. Hugo Banzer was US-trained and backed by the CIA. "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." He closed universities and outlawed unions. In two years he is reported to have had over 2,000 political opponents seized ex judicia, tortured and murdered. Banzer forcibly evicted Indians from their lands to encourage 'white' settlement. When Catholic priests tried to intervene on behalf of the Indians, he instituted terrorism against them, assisted by the CIA. The 'Banzer Plan' to deal with priests and indigenous people became a model for other countries. But his pro-US policies put him in a good light with the US. His regime ended in 1980 when General Luis Garcia staged a coup. Garcia in turn was replaced by General Celso Torrelio Villa in 1981, and in 1982 Torrelio resigned as the economy worsened.

Free at Last?

The military junta handed over power in 1982 to civilian administration led by Siles Zuazo, who headed a leftist coalition and had been elected with overwhelming popular support. However, the Congress remained in the hands of two major opposition parties, who stalled any economic reforms. With the economy in collapse, in 1985 Zuazo resigned.

Since then, while the economy has remained at death's doorstep, and politics have been fractious with destructive infighting and occasional violence, elections have governed the transitions from one government to the next.

Unfortunately, Bolivia is now an area of US focus, due to its gas reserves. Its economy is essentially run by the IMF with the usual results.

http://www.nbchs.north-battleford.sk.ca/~donnad/bolivia/culture/cultur
etext.html
http://www.geocities.com/webatlantis/BoliviaFactFile
http://www.auburn.edu/~jfdrake/teachers/gould/bolivar.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
http://www.country-studies.com/bolivia/the-tortuous-transition-to-demo
cracy.html
http://countrystudies.us/bolivia/
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=bolivia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1218814.stm
http://www.bolivarmo.com/history.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856958.html
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/bolivia.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856958.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563800_4/Bolivia.html
http://the-spark.net/cs/42004.html

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

Thursday, June 3, 2004 5:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WHAAAAHHHH!!!!

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

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

Friday, June 4, 2004 3:51 PM

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 history occurred as a result of economic reform helped by the US. Estenssoro was elected, but rue fails to mention US support for Estenssoro and the MNR, as well as the US support for the ousting of the dictatorial Garcia regime in 1981. Of course these things clearly refute the postulated notion that the US “has always been on the side of dictators.” Although it is debatable how democratic Estenssoro really was, but clearly the US has few good choices in Bolivia. However, that may be exactly what one wants, if one's interest is to ridicule the US.

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

Friday, June 4, 2004 5:58 PM

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

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.

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

Friday, June 4, 2004 6:23 PM

SCOTTISHBROWNCOAT

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!

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

Saturday, June 5, 2004 3:49 AM

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.

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

Sunday, June 6, 2004 12:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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?

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

Sunday, June 6, 2004 2:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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."

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 10:23 AM

GHOULMAN

HKCavalier, SIGNYM, and Rue... you're my heros. Maybe even Hero is too.

It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!

Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.

If someone is a warmonger I say call them on it and don't bother playing with them. Liars love to talk... it's like argueing that there isn't such a thing as a Bible Code with creeps like Billy Graham. They just don't get it.

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 3:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mmm hmmm.

Yes, well I noticed how Finn has not come up with the "real" history of Bolivia (or any place else for that matter) so that we can exchange something other than unsupported opinions.

And Finn has YET to answer my basic...puzzlement, I guess... about his (her?) view of what the heck we're doing, and why. I've tried, I really have, to figure out the driving force behind the discussion, but it's beyond me!

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 8:37 PM

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

SignyM,

I bet myself $100 I have the answer. I'm waiting to see if I'm right.

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

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 5:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OOOOOOH! Tell me!! Tell me!!! Tell me!!!!

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

Thursday, June 10, 2004 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!

Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.

Good morning Ghoulman. Hadda take a break from this thread after that crack Finn made when I spoke of the real social change brought about by men like Dr. King and Ghandi without firing a shot. He made that really ugly joke about how ineffectual "a nice 'I have a dream' speech" would have been against Hitler. Well, that left me speechless for a week until your comments above reminded me of the larger picture.

More and more I see how my country's sense of self is fueled by illusion, by bragartry, by denial. Finn thinks we defeated Hitler with bombs and bullets. First of all, we Americans had precious little to do with defeating Hitler. Europe and the U.S.S.R. defeated Hitler's armies, not the Americans. And yet, every American schoolboy and girl thinks we stormed the beach at Normandy and saved the world from the Nazis.

Likewise, the fall of communism, another Russo-European phenomenon for which we take credit.

Now we're "bringing democracy" to Iraq. I think you're right, Ghoulman--how are we supposed to do that when we don't even respect what little democracy actually happens in this country? Democracy in America has always functioned in the shadow of the plutocrats. Nothing gets done in this country except by their leave. When a suitably rich man doesn't like our democratic process, he and his cronies have always gotten around it somehow. I do think there's a real democratic spirit in this land (thank you, Iroquois Confederacy!) and even these rich bastards that pull the strings have a sentimental attachment to the idea, but here on the ground, there ain't a lot of democracy happening.

Again I will say that the reason Signy doesn't understand Finn's position is that Finn is representing this force of illusion, bragartry and denial. He says what he says because he feels compelled to, not because it has any internal logic. Finn is a nationalist, he may say that he doesn't agree with this or that policy, but at base he's defending the honor of his country. His allegiance is not to Truth or Justice or Humanity or even simple logic, but to America, right or wrong.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:51 PM

KOHAN

after about an 2 hours or so of reading this thread and following sources... I was wondering what each of you think about this little scenerio

Lets say that a group of small children are playing around an old railway terminal. Two rails leads in and out of this terminal, each leads into a different tunnel; one's still in use and the other one isn't. One child decides that he'll venture into the tunnel that is out of commission while the other kids went into the active one.

Now, here's the dilemma.

At this moment, you notice that a train is running near headding toward the active tunnel.

You are faced with a choice, either you switch the tracks and have the train run into the inactive tunnel, only losing one child; or you left it as is and leave the majority up for dead.

What will you do? Most people will choose to save the majority and sacrifice the minority. One is only a small price to pay when many are at risk, isn't it?

But on the other hand, why should the kid who decided that it was unintelligent to fool around an active rail be punished for making the right decision? (under the circumstances of course)

Then of course this draws out another question, the inactive tunnel is out of commission for a reason, would you put the lives of the passenger at risk?
-----------------------------------------------

All I'm trying to say here is that things arn't always black and white, there are rights and there are wrongs; and there're even factors and we did not take into account for.

If there's anything I ever learned about politics, is that being hardhead won't get too far...
(that's why Dubbya isn't gettin very far)

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:07 PM

JCOBB

Quote:
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.

Not to jump right into the middle of this or anything, but I do believe good ol' Jimmy Carter attempted to implement the Compassion's more ideal frame of reference, (read here if you are unfamiliar with his policy: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/55.htm ) lofty goals, to be sure, and yet they didn't always, (or even often) work in the "real world."

Now, this might be more an issue related to his leadership, and not his ideals, and yet I am continually brought back to the hostages in Iran. When a more pragmatic, "Tough Noogie" was sworn into office the hostages were freed. Of course they would have been freed anyways, that is not in question. It just seems to be the obvious polarity between the two, (Reagan and Carter) and the successes and failures in policy that raises doubt in my mind.

Again, easily could be due to implementation and not due to the policy itself.

I don't care, I'm still free.

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:20 PM

Kohan,

What you present as a morally complex problem, seems to me simply to be an impossible situation. A child or children will die no matter what you do. You're screwed. I don't think the lesser of two evils applies when both evils are unthinkable. Furthermore, no one actually presented with your exquisitely improbable situation would be reasoning it out, they'd try to get all the kids off the tracks, do the best they could and blame themselves for whatever went wrong.

So, I don't see a connection between your parable and this discussion other than its putative moral: some things aren't as black and white as we might like.

Well, yeah...

But what about this reality/fiction debate? People are accusing other people of living in a fantasy or believing fictions as if they were facts. When people post their sources, the sources are impuned. The struggle here, seems to be of the highest order, a battle for reality itself. But whose reality is the real reality?

To me personally, this is a very interesting fracture in consensual reality. What happens to consensual reality when half the people don't consent? In the current political scene it looks like the people in power decide what reality is, and what is that, if not fascism?

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

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:39 PM