REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Funny how this works, we were JUST discussing this in another thread.....

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Sunday, May 23, 2010 16:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9496
PAGE 3 of 4

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, I've repeatedly said.... something which you've ignored about six times at this point... that the critical decisions were made about 65 years ago. One decision led to one historical fork. Another decision led to a different path.. a path that worked badly for BOTH the United States AND Vietnam.

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

So, continuing with my list of US-aided atrocities...

EAST TIMOR, INDONESIA

Although the East Timorese party in control at the time (Fretilin) was avowedly Marxist (and opposed by a party of landowners, the UDT) nobody knows what Fretilin would have done because it was crushed by Indonesia, with tacit and material support from the United States.

Quote:

The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December 1975 set the stage for the long, bloody, and disastrous occupation of the territory that ended only after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999. President Bill Clinton cut off military aid to Indonesia in September 1999—reversing a longstanding policy of military cooperation—but questions persist about U.S. responsibility for the 1975 invasion; in particular, the degree to which Washington actually condoned or supported the bloody military offensive. Most recently, journalist Christopher Hitchens raised questions about the role of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in giving a green light to the invasion that has left perhaps 200,000 dead in the years since. Two newly declassified documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, released to the National Security Archive, shed light on the Ford administration’s relationship with President Suharto of Indonesia during 1975. Of special importance is the record of Ford’s and Kissinger’s meeting with Suharto in early December 1975. The document shows that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House. Both of these documents had been released in heavily excised form some years ago, but with Suharto now out of power, and following the collapse of Indonesian control over East Timor, the situation has changed enough that both documents have been released in their entirety.
This is in addition to Suharto killing up to 500,000 suspect communists in Indonesia proper.

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/

Well, I see I'm out of time, so I'll have to peck at this list as time allows.

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

Monday, May 3, 2010 11:07 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Sheesh, I'm replying and I said I wouldn't.

Signy, East Timor was an Indonesian invasion.

The way you see it the US is responsible for everything. If one of your leaders farted in the UN, then somehow a conflict becomes all your fault. This is the same kind of crazy reasoning that Wulfenstar used in another thread when he took credit for all the art, culture, and innovation of Western Civilisation. It's the same kind of hubris - except that you are taking responsibility for every world conflict and every casualty of that conflict that the US was even minutely involved in.

So America is either responsible for all the good or all the bad in the world? Geez, you guys do have a messiah complex one way or another.

You could blame the East Timorese deaths on a lot of things. Support given or not given by countries like the US or Australia. On Portugal from withdrawing its control of East Timor, leaving a power vacuum in which the Indonesians decided to step into. You could blame it on colonialism which exploited countries and denied them a role in self determination. You could blame post colonialism in which the colonial powers abandoned many of their colonies because the conflict made it no longer economically viable to stay or because they themselves were no longer in a position to stay, and as a result left them open to years of conflict while that power vacuum was being filled. You could blame the fight of ideologies that marked the 20th century, between left and right which forged alliances between some strange bedfellows indeed. You could blame the Indonesians for their heavy handed, scorched earth tactics in subduing a population that preferred self determination to control from another big power.

Or you could just blame the Americans.

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

Monday, May 3, 2010 11:59 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

You know, life for most Germans under Hitler was pretty OK (until they lost the war).


You might think that life is okay is sectors of the population - anyone of Jewish descent, gypsies, disabled, unionists, left wingers, dissenters of any kind - were either being sent to labour camps or executed. You would have been charged with treason already, under Hitler and beheaded like members of the White Rose, a groups of twenty year old students who printed handouts critical of Hitler. It doesn't rate for me as an okay life. All other Germans had ten economically properous years, max before they were bombed back the the dark ages, raped, plundered and imprisoned. So I don't think many Germans would look back and see those years as being particularly golden.

Quote:

Life in Chile under Pinochet was the same. So was life in Brazil under a series of military dictatorships, and in Israel where Jews live quite well while Palestinians are ground under the boot heel. So today, we (you and I) are in the in-group.

As above.


Quote:

It's not US being ground down. And its easy to say... where's the problem? I'm OK, you're OK. That smoky smell? Don't know. An exception. Not part of the system. It's far easier to see atrocities if you're not benefiting, and have no emotional ties to the ones being destroyed.

I'm not seeing or discounting anything. I don't support the US in a whole swathe of its foreign policies, even though you continue to imply I do. I don't wish to defend the US, I just don't see that the current US system can be compared to regimes like Stalin and Hitler. Simple really. You may be bad, you just aint that bad.

You're taking responsibility for things that aren't purely yours to take responsibility for. While you are at it, why don't you tally up all the deaths from WW2 from both sides, because gosh, darn, didn't that Treaty of Versaille cause all that heart ache in the first place.


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

Monday, May 3, 2010 12:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


Yikes,

What an ugly corner of the world people are living.

1. Rap is right, of course. Well said. The first one at least.

2. The evils of capitalism do not make the evils of communism "good."

3. People seem to primarily be disagreeing with the post not because of what it said, but because it was Rap who said it, or reposted it. Next time, just tweet ;)

4. Rap, I have to go with Sig on Haiti here. Check Aristide's "Eyes of the Heart." It puts a little perspective on the history I assume we all know. History is a nation of debtors in permanent collective debt, inherited from their initial contract of slavery. They, sadly, did not realize that collective perpetual debt and slavery are the same thing, and if you don't believe it, look up the original slave contracts. Actually, the original contracts are basically sub-prime mortgages. From there it evolved. Slavery is still evolving.

Overall, I take Rap's point on the selective imbalance of education, but I don't the left. We should blame ourselves. We should devote more effort to educating people about the rest of the story, let the left say their piece. I think when all the dust is settled, you'll find we aren't really after all that different.

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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GEEZER, still paying attention? WAKE UP, BOY! There will be a quiz at the end of this section. You'll notice that all the governments we overthrew were democractially-elected? YEAH, we're for DEMOCRACY!

MAGON
Quote:

I don't wish to defend the US
Well then don't. Especially out of ignorance.
Quote:

I just don't see that the current US system can be compared to regimes like Stalin and Hitler. Simple really. You may be bad, you just aint that bad.
Really? Or are you just engaging in wishful thinking, due to a lack of knowledge? Lets start with your comment about USA not being responsible for the Indonesian killing of 100,000 East Timorese. Check your history! We overthrew democratically-elected Sukarno and replaced him with Suharto. (Yeah, I know... it's just so hard to keeps these names straight!) It was Suharto who would go on to kill 500,000 suspected communists and then invade East Timor, killing another 100,000 people..


SUKARNO, DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF INDONESIA (1965)
"The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects." Suharto would THEN go on to invade East Timor and kill ANOTHER 100,000 people, with explicit permission from Ford and Kissinger granted in a personal meeting, and with US arms.



ARBENZ, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF GUATEMALA (1954)
Arbenz' crime was to take unused land from corporations and give it to the peasants. The military was in power for four decades after that.
"The violence caused the deaths and disappearances of more than 140,000 Guatemalans. Some human rights activists put the death toll as high as 250,000."
www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story38.html



JUAN BOSCH, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (1963)
"President Lyndon Johnson... Citing as an official reason for the invasion the need to protect the lives of foreigners, none of whom had been killed or wounded, a fleet of 41 vessels was sent to blockade the island, and an invasion was launched by Marines and elements of the United States Army's 82nd Airborne Division on 29 April. Also, around 75 members of E company of the 7th Special Forces Group were deployed. Ultimately, 42,000 soldiers and marines were ordered to the Dominican Republic."


AROSEMANA, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF ECUADOR 1963
"A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights."


--------------
Well, not EVEN halfway through the list yet! A couple hundred thousand here, a million there... it starts to add up! And after that, I'll start working on sanctions, starvation, and economic policy!


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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:52 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sig,

Not sure what your point is here

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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 3:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
SUKARNO, DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF INDONESIA (1965)


"Subsequently, indigenous forces across both Sumatra and Java aided the Japanese against the Dutch but would not cooperate in the supply of the aviation fuel which was essential for the Japanese war effort. Desperate for local support in supplying the volatile cargo, Japan now brought Sukarno back to Jakarta. He helped the Japanese in obtaining its aviation fuel and forced labor conscripts, called kerja paksa in Indonesian and Romusha in Japanese. Sukarno was lastingly ashamed of his role with the romusha.[8] He also was involved with Peta and Heiho (Javanese volunteer army troops) via speeches broadcast on the Japanese radio and loud speaker networks across Java. By mid-1945 these units numbered around two million, and were preparing to defeat any Allied forces sent to re-take Java.

On November 10, 1943 Sukarno was decorated by the Emperor of Japan in Tokyo. He also became head of Badan Penyelidik Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI), the Japanese-organized committee through which Indonesian independence was later gained. On 7 September 1944, with the war going badly for the Japanese, Prime Minister Koiso promised independence for Indonesia, although no date was set.[9] This announcement was seen, according to the U.S. official history, as immense vindication for Sukarno's apparent collaboration with the Japanese.[10] The U.S. at the time considered Sukarno one of the "foremost collaborationist leaders." [11]
...
Sukarno also established government control over media and book publishing as well as laws discriminating against Chinese permanent residents (China Totok). On July 5, 1959 he reestablished the 1945 constitution by presidential edict. It established a presidential system which he believed would make it easier to implement the principles of guided democracy. He called the system Manifesto Politik or Manipol—but was actually government by decree. He sent his opponents to internal exile." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukarno

Quote:

ARBENZ, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF GUATEMALA (1954)

I'll grant you that one.


Quote:

JUAN BOSCH, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (1963)

"Although his government proved to be cautious, Bosch was suspected of being a Communist sympathizer by the Dominican élite, and after seven months in power he was overthrown by the military with tacit US support. A further military uprising took place in 1965 with the aim of reinstating him, and as the country verged on civil war, the US invaded and imposed peace. In elections the following year Bosch lost to his conservative rival, Joaquín Balaguer. He would never again win the presidency although he attempted to do so on several occasions." EDIT to add cite. http://www.answers.com/topic/juan-bosch

So the U.S. stopped a civil war and imposed peace after two coups or attempted coups in three years - and then allowed elections, which Bosch lost.

Quote:

AROSEMANA, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF ECUADOR 1963

"Carlos Julio Arosemena was one of the most colourful politicians to have served as President of Ecuador, a country that has had no shortage of larger-than-life leaders.

At the height of the Cold War, he fluctuated wildly between flirting with Cuba and cracking down hard on the left, and he was eventually overthrown by the military after a series of scandals arising from his fondness for the bottle. But he survived to become a revered elder statesman, respectfully consulted by politicians of all persuasions. The government declared three days of national mourning to mark his passing.

Arosemena was a protégé of the most flamboyant of Ecuador's long line of populist caudillos, José María Velasco Ibarra, who was President five times and deposed by coup d'état four times. He was serving as Velasco's Vice-President in 1961, when the military overthrew him and installed Arosemena in the presidential palace in his place. He lasted 20 turbulent months, before the armed forces tired of him, too.

His liking for intoxicating left-wing rhetoric was as strong as his predilection for what he called "masculine vices" (which he defined as booze, women and - less predictably - reading. He had a private library of more than 15,000 volumes). The combination was more than the country's conservative business élite and military establishment could stomach.

When they threatened to move against him, he attempted to shore up his position by breaking off diplomatic relations with Cuba, Poland and Czechoslovakia. This earned him a public rebuke from Fidel Castro, who called him a "drunken coward". But it was too late to save his skin: in July 1963 the armed forces turned him out, proclaiming that it was their duty to save the country from the "abyss of dissolution and anarchy" into which Arosemena was leading it."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/carlos-julio-arosemena-54
9581.html




"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I've ignored this thread because it's become so full of long-winded posts making one point or the other. But the basic thing I see in this is as follows:

Comparing any one dictator or system (as that put up in the beginning of this thread) to what the US has done isn't possible, we just don't have the numbers.

Blaming any other system OR the US for being the "worst guys on the block" is equally fallacious; we don't have the numbers.

Basically, there have been many conquerors, tyrants, dictators, whatever throughout history. They have all been responsible for many, many deaths either directly or indirectly. The same is true of the US. Which individual one is worst is an argument it is impossible to have, given we can't look back through history and get an accurate count of the dead, NOR can we add up all the secondary death costs, like the US backing a certain regime, democratically elected or otherwise.

Basically speaking, shouldn't we accept that horrors have occurred, which country is responsible for the worst of them is impossible to calculate, but for sure the American government has been responsible for its fair share of them?

I don't think calling Magons ignorant has any meaning; NOBODY knows all the details. If we want to nitpick we can blame Canada and Australia for following our lead in many cases, or blame Australia for the aborigines, or whatever we choose to focus on. It's the FOCUS that seems to be the debate, and if the focus were on overall deaths, nobody has the answer.




"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 5:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


DT You're smarter than that.

Niki,
Quote:

Comparing any one dictator or system (as that put up in the beginning of this thread) to what the US has done isn't possible, we just don't have the numbers.
So there is no basis for comparison? Really? Then modern-day Germany is no different from fascist Germany? China is no different than Iceland? Communism is no different than capitalism, and democracy no different that tyranny?

If you take that stance, then USA has NO business getting involved in other nations... or even self defense... seeing as it's all the same anyway and no one can judge. Yanno, I think it's kind of telling that peeps only come out with these wishy-washy arguments when THEIR favorite ox is gored.

So, on with the list! (And GEEZER, I'll get to your post later. As of late, you're the most honest person in this thread. Thank you for at least standing up for what you believe in, instead of hoping to hem and haw your way out of the issue.)


BOSCH, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (AGAIN) 1965
A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force.


GREECE, 1965 and 1967
With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece. In 1967 a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."



CONGO 1965
A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. Mobutu arrested and assasinated Patrice Lumumba. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.


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

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yanno, this list is beginning to have a depressing sameness, like a bad horror movie or a slow-motion train wreck. You might wonder why I'm doing this and at times I do too. But I intend to go through it to the end, if nothing else to honor the generations who were killed by the USA.

After that, I'll get to the starvation part.



JUAN TORRES, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF BOLIVIA 1971
Bolivia was one of the original Operation Condor nations: "Condor specialized in targeted abductions, disappearances, interrogations / torture or transfers of persons across border. According to a declassified 1976 FBI report, Condor had several levels; 1) Shared military intelligence levels, 2) "cross border operations to detain dissidents," 3) "assassin teams for global subversive enemies". The CIA fomented opposition by training secret police and providing lists of names. Torres was overthrown in a bloody coup d'état led by the Junta of Commanders of the Armed Forces. Despite massive resistance — both civilian and military — the conservative forces had learned the lessons of the failed October, 1970 uprising, and applied brutality without compunction. Torres he fled the country and settled in Buenos Aires where he was kidnapped and assassinated by American-trained Bolivian dictator Hugo Banzer. Bolivia is also the site of Che Guevara's killing.


GOUGH WHITLAM, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA 1973
Yep, you read that correctly. It is commonly alleged- though not proven- that the Central Intelligence Agency influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group which was later revealed to have received Central Intelligence Agency funding. Christopher Boyce, an employee of a CIA civilian contractor and convicted Soviet spy, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Sir John Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr".


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

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 2:08 AM

DREAMTROVE


Sig,

Sorry, I think you're missing my point: No amount of blame shifting here will help socialism. The best you can hope for is to tie it inextricably to capitalism in the hopes that both will go down together. Is that your goal?

Quote:


A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. Mobutu arrested and assasinated Patrice Lumumba. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.



The change of tense is a little jarring, but hey, it's the internet. Anyway, case in point. Mobutu was thrown out by communist revolutionary Laurent Kabila, who then failed to have democratic elections as promised (and old refrain for communist revolutionaries.) Kabila was assassinated (probably because of this) and his son, Joseph Kabila, took over. The younger Kabila is a pan-Africanist, globalist, and unmitigated disaster. Ten million of his citizens have been slaughtered in the ensuing war, a fair number of whom were *eaten*.

So yeah, I grant Mobutu was a horrendous leader, and personally pocketed 1/2 the gdp, and bankrupted Kinshasa rather impressively. But still, I'm not sure there is any realistic comparison here. It would be sort of like saying the Wiemar Republic was a horrible because it bankrupted the economy, which, okay, it did. Ya see my point though, I hope.

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

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
JUAN TORRES, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF BOLIVIA 1971


"He became the reform-minded dictator Alfredo Ovando's right-hand man and commander of the army when the latter came to power as a result of a coup d'état in September 1969. Torres became one of the more left-leaning officers in the Bolivian military, urging Ovando to enact more far-reaching reforms and to stand up to the more conservative officers. On October 6, 1970, an anti-government coup d'état took place, led by right-wing military commanders. Much blood was shed on the streets of various major cities, with military garrisons fighting each other on behalf of one camp or the other. Eventually, President Ovando sought asylum in a foreign embassy, believing all hope was lost. But the leftist military forces re-asserted themselves under the combative leadership of general Torres, and eventually triumphed. Worn out by 13 grueling months in office, Ovando agreed to leave the presidency in the hands of his friend, general Torres, the hero of the moment. The latter was sworn in and went on to govern the country for 10 difficult and tumultuous months." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Jos%C3%A9_Torres

Not sure that being handed the presidency by the previous dictator qualifies as "Democratically elected".

Quote:

GOUGH WHITLAM, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA 1973


Looking at the quite extensive Wikipedia section on Whitlam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam it appears he was trying to force changes on the Australian government that the majority didn't want, leading to constitutional crisis. Even Whitlam, in his book The Whitlam Government, said Kerr didn't need any encouragement from the CIA to remove him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis





"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

So there is no basis for comparison? Really? Then modern-day Germany is no different from fascist Germany? China is no different than Iceland? Communism is no different than capitalism, and democracy no different that tyranny?

If you take that stance, then USA has NO business getting involved in other nations... or even self defense... seeing as it's all the same anyway and no one can judge. Yanno, I think it's kind of telling that peeps only come out with these wishy-washy arguments when THEIR favorite ox is gored.



Now WHERE did I say there's no basis for comparison? I said we can't know the number of dead and who specifically is responsible for which death, which is what this thread has degenerated to. "THEY did this!" "WE did that!"

Personally, I don't think we DO have any business involving ourselves in other nations. The self-defense thing is stupid; we've never had to defend ourselves against ANYONE, and have jumped into stuff because of "possible" attacks (or for financial and other reasons)--Remember the Bush Doctrine? It's given us excuse to invade other countries...not that we didn't do it before.

Amusingly, I'm not defending my "favorite ox"...I'm saying we aren't innocent, period. You know, the perspective thing I keep bringing to my arguments? I'm saying we've done what governments have done since the beginning of time; conquer, occupy, back insurgents. Less than some, more than others; but I'm not fighting against making America the bad guy NOR saying we're the good guys.
Quote:

Basically speaking, shouldn't we accept that horrors have occurred, which country is responsible for the worst of them is impossible to calculate, but for sure the American government has been responsible for its fair share of them?
That's not wishy-washy, it a fact.

You want to see that as attacking America; I see that as being aware of the truths...all of them. Why are YOU so determined to make us worse than others? Have you got a favorite ox that's being gored?


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It may be difficult to calculate, but not impossible. IMHO facts and logic are the ONLY means to evaluate how a system is working, otherwise you wind up in Rappy-land... with sincere religious* beliefs divorced from anything in the real world.

* Religious as opposed to scientific. Religions are not subject to real-world testing and evaluation, but rest exclusively on faith. For example, Rappy's belief in corporatism is religious. That is why he can press forward, not only with lack of facts but in direct contravention of known facts.

Oh, BTW... Rappy? If you're still with us... a good theory doesn't explain SOME of the facts it explains ALL facts. And that is the problem with YOUR approach... you think that if you have ONE fact (even though three or four directly contradict it) that is enough to classify your POV as "realistic" or "factual".

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:51 AM

DREAMTROVE


lol @ "Rappy's belief in corporatism is religious."

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oops. Skipped some. Thought this post was all to DT. So.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:BOSCH, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (AGAIN) 1965
A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force.


So, after Bosch loses the election of 1965, a 'popular' revolution breaks out against JOAQUIN BALAGUER, THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, promising to reinstall the person who lost the election as leader? If Bosch was so popular, why'd he lose the election? Why shouldn't the U.S. Marines protect THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC?

But I notice that pretty much all your cites come from one article - "A Timeline of CIA Atrocities" by Steve Kangas, published on his own homepage.

In it's final paragraphs is this sentence. "The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity."

Hardly an unbiased source.

SignyM, I don't doubt that U.S. foreign policy has been hamfisted and destructive at times. I don't doubt that the government has backed bad people against folks they thought would be worse. I'm just not so sure that the purpose, as you seem to think, was to crush liberty.

I figure that if the U.S. had taken no action against the 'agrarian reformers' and 'popular revolutions' in Central and South America:

First, the bloodshed between factions would have been pretty much the same, or worse.
Second, if the revolutions succeeded, many countries in those regions would now have the same levels of individual liberty, participatory democracy, press freedom, labor protection and lack of government corruption currently enjoyed by the people in Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and North Korea.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Personally, I don't think we DO have any business involving ourselves in other nations. The self-defense thing is stupid; we've never had to defend ourselves against ANYONE, and have jumped into stuff because of "possible" attacks (or for financial and other reasons)--Remember the Bush Doctrine? It's given us excuse to invade other countries...not that we didn't do it before.


You're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't, really. In my neck of the woods, some of the criticism of the US was that they didn't enter WW2 until they were physically attacked, watching instead as country after country fell to tyranny.

The problem has been that in many interventions over the years, the US has picked the wrong side to back, or supported one hideous leadership over another hideous leadership.

While we're talking rumours of sneaky dealings, it has been said that Churchill was fully aware of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbour, but did not alert Roosevelt as he wanted the impact to force the US into the war, the only way Britain was going to keep from being conquered by the Germans.

Quote:

GOUGH WHITLAM, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA 1973
Yep, you read that correctly. It is commonly alleged- though not proven- that the Central Intelligence Agency influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group which was later revealed to have received Central Intelligence Agency funding. Christopher Boyce, an employee of a CIA civilian contractor and convicted Soviet spy, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Sir John Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr".



Unproved conspiracy theory #365. Another example of your inverted hubris. What you keep touting through your examples is that no country has been in any way responsible for their own destiny, for their own muck ups and stuff ups and conflicts, because all of us are just mindless minions of the US, who appears to be responsible for 100% of all the crap that has gone down everywhere. Your 'facts' ignore the political complexities and peculiarities of individual countries, as you paint everything black and white once again.

Were you aware that Kerr sacked the PM, forcing an election, in which the population (sick puppies that they were) could have voted Whitlam back into power, but didn't. Or are you saying that the US has infiltrated our voting system as well?

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


MAGONSDAUGHTER

It's far worse than it seems. We infiltrate everyone's democracy and economy. We were already at war with Japan, we were allied to Germany. Britain wasn't afraid of takeover from Germany, Germany was being run by Britain. Okay, I can't prove that last, but I'm not about to say it's not so, there's some damned peculiar things that I've seen. Now I'll step aside and let one of the people here who does know field that one. I figure they lurk.

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 3:48 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MAGONSDAUGHTER

It's far worse than it seems. We infiltrate everyone's democracy and economy. We were already at war with Japan, we were allied to Germany. Britain wasn't afraid of takeover from Germany, Germany was being run by Britain. Okay, I can't prove that last, but I'm not about to say it's not so, there's some damned peculiar things that I've seen. Now I'll step aside and let one of the people here who does know field that one. I figure they lurk.


You've lost me there, Dreamtrove.

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But I notice that pretty much all your cites come from one article - "A Timeline of CIA Atrocities" by Steve Kangas, published on his own homepage. In it's final paragraphs is this sentence. "The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity."

Hardly an unbiased source.

Oh, Steve has a comprehensive list. A little TOO comprehensive. But once you cross check his posts against OTHER sources you can get to the facts. Also, there are a few things that he missed which have to be gotten from other lists. Just googling CIA+ coup turned up a lot.
Quote:

I'm just not so sure that the purpose, as you seem to think, was to crush liberty.
It's not to crush liberty Geezer. Haven't you been paying attention? It's to squeeze more labor and/ or resources out of the poor. It doesn't seem to matter whether our target is a democracy, a theocracy, a monarchy, or a tyranny. The ONE constant fact?

We always side with the rich.

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magonsdaughter

I thought a lurker might post a rant here, might still happen

The US had been at war with Japan since 1937, at which point, the US, USSR and Germany were allied against Japan in a Chinese Civil War which we would later come to call WWII. I believe this is how the war really started, which itself is not a conspiracy theory.

The degree to which international banking interests were involved in the conflict explains the neutrality of Switzerland, and how, despite vastly more powerful armies across the border, no one on either side invaded the Swiss, and there limited campaigns against the UK and US. The US, UK and Switzerland were financially all over the war, and no one wanted to risk that power structure.

See, here's the trick: There was little point to the war, other than to cull the population. There were so few people with so much power, a small team of assassins would have been far more effective. Many people have noted that one bullet would have taken Germany out of the war. The reason for this is that Goering seemed to have little interest in a war, both early and late in the conflict. He would have definitely been up to talking at any point, and he would have become German chancellor if Hitler was shot, as he did, when that eventually happened. (Small amount of theory added: I do not believe the man committed suicide.) But it doesn't matter. A simple bullet would have done the trick if anyone in the west had a vested interest in the war ending. I believe that all changed when the war started to turn against Germany in favor of Russia, not an outcome that anyone in the west wanted to see. (more theory: So when it became inevitable that Russia would replace Germany, they pulled they pulled the trigger)

That said, for the other side, the logical target would have been banker, which would have been true if someone else had been in charge. As it was, Axis leadership was too connected itself to international banking.

All of that said, this war was not really so much about Europe. I suspect it was really more about China. Ultimately, the Soviet support of Mao Tse Dong would be a disaster on an epic scale, but no one saw that at the time, or perhaps cared. Designing the post-war China was the goal. In the end, the US stood by Chang Kai Shek, which was a terrible idea, and really sacrificed the war to Russia, who won. This could definitely be called a defeat for the west, but if we spin it differently it's victory ;) The logical end game would have been for the US to command the Japanese to secure China and S.E. Asia, which they could have done, but they chose to disband the army instead (where have I seen that recently?) It was a dumb move then, and it's a dumb move now. I can't assume that people make dumb moves because they are themselves dumb, but more I suspect because they don't really want to succeed.

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


ANGOLA 1975
Hard to believe, but Angola did not shed its colonial status of Portugal until 1975. A civil war ensued... the USA naturally comes in on the side of apartheid South Africa, and the former colonial power of Portugal. The civil war lasts for years and kills millions.
Quote:

"In a meeting including President Ford, Secretary of State Kissinger, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, and CIA Director William Colby among others, U.S. intervention in Angola's civil war is discussed. In response to evidence of Soviet aid to the MPLA, Secretary Schlesinger says, "we might wish to encourage the disintegration of Angola.” Kissinger describes two meetings of the 40 Committee oversight group for clandestine operations in which covert operations were authorized: “The first meeting involved only money, but the second included some arms package."Beginning in 1975, CIA participated in the Angolan Civil War, hiring and training American, British, French and Portuguese private military contractors, as well as training UNITA rebels under Jonas Savimbi, to fight against the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola led by Agostinho Neto. John Stockwell commanded the CIA's Angola effort in 1975 to 1976.



AFGHANISTAN 1979
As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.
More later...

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 5:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, Steve has a comprehensive list. A little TOO comprehensive.


I could find similar lists on some ultraconservative's site that prove that it was all a big communist plot. Instead I get my info from general reference sources which have no blatant bias.
Quote:

It's not to crush liberty Geezer. Haven't you been paying attention? It's to squeeze more labor and/ or resources out of the poor.



Way to ingore most of my post and try to pick one sentence.

Anyway.

As noted above, Vietnamese workers earn maybe $2.00 a day for a 12 hour day. So even if they worked every day they'd earn $62.00 a month max.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-05-30/business/17296007_1_chi-minh-cit
y-minimum-wage-assembly-line


in China, it's $112.00 a month.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51J0MO20090220

Laos is $30.00 a month.
http://www.eria.org/research/images/pdf/PDF%20No.5/No,5-7-Lao%20PDR.pd
f


Cuba, in 2008, was $20.00 a month. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7449776.stm

Even if these are just ballpark figures, they're an embarrassment to their governments. So who's squeezing the poor?

Besides, how about the lack of individual liberty, free elections, press freedom, labor rights, and freedom from government corruption in the nations which had successful communist revolutions?







"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, May 6, 2010 7:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GEEZER
Quote:

Besides, how about the lack of individual liberty, free elections, press freedom, labor rights, and freedom from government corruption in the nations which had successful communist revolutions?
Well, since you define communism as all of the above, then any other nations which has a different outcome ipso facto isn't communist. That's great rhetoric Geezer, but very bad logic.
Quote:

I could find similar lists on some ultraconservative's site that prove that it was all a big communist plot.
Not trying to prove it's "all" a capitalist plot, just that we had a hand in destroying quite a few nascent socialist democracies... and setting up a helluva a lot of dictatorships, killing a few million people along the way. But thanks for trying to divert attention from that by resorting to your usual straw man tactic!
Quote:

Instead I get my info from general reference sources which have no blatant bias.
Oh, the CIA factbook?

Quote:

First, the bloodshed between factions would have been pretty much the same, or worse.
Do you have any basis for that conclusion, or did you just pull it out of your ass?
Quote:

Second, if the revolutions succeeded, many countries in those regions would now have the same levels of individual liberty, participatory democracy, press freedom, labor protection and lack of government corruption currently enjoyed by the people in Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and North Korea.
I guess the endless series of genocidal military leaders, the millions of dead, the hundred of thousands imprisoned and tortured were so much better, eh?

As an alternate path, we could look at Brazil under Lula, Bolivia under Evo, Chile under Michelle Bachelet, all democratically-elected socialists, very much like many of the leaders we put down. Or we could look at ... my personal favorite... Costa Rica. I like Costa Rica as an example of what might have been, because it is the ONLY nation south of the border which DIDN'T enjoy one or more of our "interventions". Maybe things would have been so much better if we had just left the hell alone, instead of ALWAYS stepping in on the side of the wealthy.

----------

Making this list... which I will continue, as it isn't complete by a long shot... has taught me something.

There is, as I said, a depressing pattern about the whole thing. Poor people, colonies, push for a better life. Land. Shorter hours. Unionization. Education. The vote. Women's rights. National identity.

But there is always a group of people within those very same nations who push back: The wealthy. Colonial subalterns like "Emperor" Bao Dai who was willing to sell out his countrymen for a few scraps of power. Bankers. Plantation owners. Industrialists. Corporate representatives. Generals. People for whom land reform and unionization and education and democracy represent a REAL THREAT to their privileged way of life. It's not JUST the United States and its guns... someone has to be there to do the dirty work... the killing and terrorizing. Who better to do the dirty work than those who dread change? There's nothing like the frisson of wealth preservation to unleash the will to terrorize.

The point is that no matter how necessary the reform or honest the leadership, there is no law, no election, no movement, no revolution with 100% support. There will always be some against it: 10%, 50%, or sometimes (as in the beginning of the American War of Independence) 70%.

So if you're looking for a revolution like V, in which the soldiers put down their weapons under the gaze of thousands of people... well, maybe that happens once in a while but generally... no. I've learned that change which truly threatens the power structure usually is a messy business.

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

Friday, May 7, 2010 2:15 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer has a point: The curtailment of individual liberties is radically adversely effecting the earning potential of workers. A Chinese worker could often make a great deal more by simply relocating, if they were allowed to do so. Not only is this limiting, but it creates a very bad situation overall. If you hold people back, they're going to feel oppressed, resent it, and also develop the delusion that things are greener on the other side.. If the govt. just let go, the standard of living in different locations, if not the actual wage, would balance out. Instead, they're veering into a two-tiered society.

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

Friday, May 7, 2010 2:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The curtailment of individual liberties is radically adversely effecting the earning potential of workers.
Then that argument applies to doubly anti-labor military dictatorships, because not only are individual liberties curtailed, but it is the express purpose of that curtailment to drive labor reformers into the ground.
Quote:

A Chinese worker could often make a great deal more by simply relocating, if they were allowed to do so.
Chinese workers ARE allowed to relocate. Why do you think there is such an influx from the country to the cities? I know there are caveats, as Chinese unemployment and other assistance was originally tied to State Owned Enterprises and then to the province in which the worker was registered, similar to the English parish system in the 1800s. Apparently, though, both China's tally of the unemployed and its provisions for unemployment insurance have become more fluid, and less dependent on worker location. I can't get a URL for this as it immediately downloads, but google chinese+unemployment+assistance and look for this

siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/.../0820.pdf

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

Friday, May 7, 2010 3:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW, here's an interesting statistic about income equality. Income equality is measured by the GINI index. A society in which everyone made the same amount of money would have a GINI index of 1 (or 100, depending in which scale you use).

Now, one of the goals of many of the socialist governments which we've managed to pound into the ground is greater income equality... fewer VERY rich and VERY poor more in the middle. What people like Rappy would spittingly call "income redistribution" or "stealing my life" and then wash their mouths out afterwards. The argument against redistribution is that it "interferes" with the function of the market (All hail the mighty market!) and therefore in some unexplained way interferes with further development. (This is a capitalist mantra which is presented as fact, but for which no proof exists. But that's how the unimaginable wealthy are justified... allowing a class of super-rich creates prosperity for all in the sweet by-and-by. But if you believe that, just look at Mexico and other nations with no middle class.)

Anyway, the curious thing about the GINI Index is that it reveals an interesting fact: That while nations with high income equality/ high GINI are not all wealthy (top 15 GINIs)

Denmark 24.7
Japan 24.9
Sweden 25
Czech Republic 25.4
Norway 25.8
Slovakia 25.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina 26.2
Finland 26.9
Hungary 26.9
Ukraine 28.1
Germany 28.3
Slovenia 28.4
Croatia 29
Austria 29.1
Bulgaria 29.2

ALL of the nations with low GINIs are very poor (bottom 15).


Ecuador 53.6
Honduras 53.8
Chile 54.9
Guatemala 55.1
Panama 57.5
Brazil 51.3
South Africa 57.8
Paraguay 58.4
Colombia 58.6
Haiti 59.2
Bolivia 60.1
Botswana 60.5
Central African Republic 61.3
Sierra Leone 62.9
Lesotho 63.2
Namibia 74.3

So while income equality is necessary for development and is a reasonable goal in an of itself, it is not sufficient for wealth creation.
As as aside, many of these very poor, very unequal nations are those that the United States has repeatedly intervened in to prop up rule by the wealthy. Surprisingly, the list of relatively high GINIs includes many former "communist" states which we would consider to be moderately developed. Between these two GINI lists, we should be able to discern the results of our foreign intervention versus Russian foreign intervention.

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

Friday, May 7, 2010 3:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, since you define communism as all of the above,...


Nope. not restricted to Communists. But those conditions do seem prevelant in the nations which have communist governments. Since that's the only example I have for what other nations would look like if they had also gone that way, I have to guess they'd end up with the same conditions.

Quote:

Not trying to prove it's "all" a capitalist plot...

Never said you were. Just illustrating that sources could be found to fit any bias.

Quote:

just that we had a hand in destroying quite a few nascent socialist democracies...

And again, if the ones that suceeded in the 1950's-70's are any example, they'd have ended up being as dictatorial and unjust as any right-wing junta of colonels.

Quote:

Oh, the CIA factbook?

Well, no.

Mostly Wikipedia, but also Answers.com, the Independent, Reporters Without Frontiers, and most recently Sfgate, Reuters, and BBC.

Quote:

"First, the bloodshed between factions would have been pretty much the same, or worse." Do you have any basis for that conclusion...?

In the countries with active insurgencies, both sides would have been equally armed. Neither side could have gained a decisive advantage, and neither side would quit. Consider the Shining Path in Peru. They've been going at it for 30 years. Or FARC in Columbia, organized in 1964 from previous revolutionary groups, which has devolved into a drug and kidnapping ring.

Quote:

I guess the endless series of genocidal military leaders, the millions of dead, the hundred of thousands imprisoned and tortured were so much better, eh?

So are we talking about North Korea here?

Quote:

As an alternate path, we could look at Brazil under Lula,

Where government-backed hydroelectric projects are flooding the land of the indigenous peoples.

Quote:

Bolivia under Evo,
Didn't know you two were on a first-name basis.
Quote:

Chile under Michelle Bachelet.

Yep, they are doing fine. They obtained their positions by election, not revolution, and seem to be expanding social welfare while letting business go on making money for their countries.

Then again, there's soon-to-be President-for-life Chavez in Venezuela.

Quote:

There is, as I said, a depressing pattern about the whole thing. Poor people, colonies, push for a better life. Land. Shorter hours. Unionization. Education. The vote. Women's rights. National identity.

But there is generally more of this in the countries were the Communist insurgencies failed than in the countries where they succeeded.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, I've already answered these points in my previous posts. I'm going to reply to you point by point this one last so that people will see that I CAN disprove your points. And then I'm going to ignore you because you're back to your usual lies and strawmen.
Quote:

But those conditions do seem prevelant in the nations which have communist governments.
Really? This seems to be a pretty baseless "GeezerFact". I just provided about a dozen examples of non-communist tyr`nations which we installed in which all of the aforementioned hallmarks of tyranny exist. So, instead of bloviating, provide a lits of ALL tyrannies since 1945, and we'll count up which ones are NOT communist and which ones are. But if you don't include all of the examples above, plus the remainder of the ones I'm going to list, it's going to look like pretty obvious cherry-picking. Not that you would ever do such a thing.
Quote:

Never said you were. Just illustrating that sources could be found to fit any bias.
Oh, you pulled a Rappy, cause that is exactly what you said.
Quote:

And again, if the ones that suceeded in the 1950's-70's are any example, they'd have ended up being as dictatorial and unjust as any right-wing junta of colonels.
And you know this how....? I answered alread. I just gave you several South American examples of where that DIDN'T happen (Evo Morales, Lula Da Silva, Bechelet) plus one example- Cosya Rica- where a nation was allowed to develop into socialism without our intervention (did you know Cost Rica has universal government health care?) and yet you insist that none of the other countries that we stomped on would have ever developed into a moderate socialist democracy, despite having started out that way. Looks like you're pulling conclusions out of your ass again.

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

Saturday, May 8, 2010 6:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
'But those conditions do seem prevelant in the nations which have communist governments.' Really? I just provided about a dozen examples of non-communist tyr`nations which we installed in which all of the aforementioned hallmarks of tyranny exist.



"Do seem". Present tense. Many(probably most) nations which ended with right-wing dictatorships after wars against Socialist insurgencies or governments in the Cold War era now have democracies. You mentioned Bolivia and Chile, and there are plenty of others. Most of Central and South America runs to democracies. Nations which got left-wing dictatorships through 'liberation' in the Cold War era - Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, e.g. - still have them. Eastern Europe didn't get out from under their left-wing dictatorships until the collapse of the Soviet Union took their government's muscle for oppression away.

Quote:

I just gave you several South American examples of where that DIDN'T happen...


Yep. Post-Cold War, which has never been my point.

All of the supposed CIA interventions against Socialist insurgencies or parties you've listed above happened against the background of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was placing atomic weapons in Cuba, the location of the first successful Socialist insurgency in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba, with Soviet approval, was fomenting insurgencies all across Central and South America. I can easily see how the U.S. government at the time would react negatively to the possibility of large chunks of South and Central America being Cuba clones.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, May 8, 2010 7:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Making this list... which I will continue, as it isn't complete by a long shot... has taught me something.

There is, as I said, a depressing pattern about the whole thing. Poor people, colonies, push for a better life. Land. Shorter hours. Unionization. Education. The vote. Women's rights. National identity.

But there is always a group of people within those very same nations who push back: The wealthy. Colonial subalterns like "Emperor" Bao Dai who was willing to sell out his countrymen for a few scraps of power. Bankers. Plantation owners. Industrialists. Corporate representatives. Generals. People for whom land reform and unionization and education and democracy represent a REAL THREAT to their privileged way of life. It's not JUST the United States and its guns... someone has to be there to do the dirty work... the killing and terrorizing. Who better to do the dirty work than those who dread change? There's nothing like the frisson of wealth preservation to unleash the will to terrorize.

The point is that no matter how necessary the reform or honest the leadership, there is no law, no election, no movement, no revolution with 100% support. There will always be some against it: 10%, 50%, or sometimes (as in the beginning of the American War of Independence) 70%.

So if you're looking for a revolution like V, in which the soldiers put down their weapons under the gaze of thousands of people... well, maybe that happens once in a while but generally... no. I've learned that change which truly threatens the power structure usually is a messy business.


Yep, which is my me and other Anarchists get into some pretty fearsome go-rounds about it, cause I keep pointing out how many folks will have to die for their perfect world and pointing out that their intended method of accomplishing it makes them not one whit better than any of the scuzzbags you've named here.

They *really* don't like that, don't ya know...

It's also why I go after the structures which produce their willing enablers, cause without them your typical tyrant is just some wanna be with a loud mouth and a buncha rhetoric, and no threat to anyone.

-Frem

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

Sunday, May 9, 2010 8:02 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


One Man’s Reign - not a political system or ideology, but thirty years of rule by one person in Russia and the results....

Famine - Stalin launched a command economy, replacing the New Economic Policy of the 1920s with Five-Year Plans and launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization. The upheaval in the agricultural sector disrupted food production, resulting in widespread famine, such as the catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, known in Ukraine as the Holodomor.

The Holodomor was a famine in the Ukrainian SSR from 1932–1933, during which millions of inhabitants died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine. Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.6 million to 10 million. Primarily as a result of the economic and trade policies instituted by Joseph Stalin, millions of Ukrainians starved to death over the course of a single year. The causes of the famine are a controversial issue and scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors, bad economic policies or engineered measures towards Ukrainian peasants.

Famine affected other parts of the USSR. The death toll from famine in the Soviet Union at this time is estimated at between five and ten million people.

Purges - Stalin, as head of the Politburo consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party, justified as an attempt to expel 'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'. Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps, to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.

Thereafter, several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. The flimsiest pretexts were often enough to brand someone an "enemy of the people," starting the cycle of public persecution and abuse, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD -NKVD troika- with sentencing carried out within 24 hours.

Mass operations of the NKVD also targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities) such as Poles, ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc. A total of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested and 247,157 (110,000 Poles) were executed. Many Americans who had emigrated to the Soviet Union during the worst of the Great Depression were executed; others were sent to prison camps or gulags. Concurrent with the purges, efforts were made to rewrite the history in Soviet textbooks and other propaganda materials. Notable people executed by NKVD were removed from the texts and photographs as though they never existed. Gradually, the history of revolution was transformed to a story about just two key characters: Lenin and Stalin.

In light of revelations from the Soviet archives, historians now estimate that nearly 700,000 people (353,074 in 1937 and 328,612 in 1938) were executed in the course of the terror, with the great mass of victims being "ordinary" Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, homemakers, teachers, priests, musicians, soldiers, pensioners, ballerinas, beggars. Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable. For example, Robert Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.

Stalin personally signed 357 proscription lists in 1937 and 1938 which condemned to execution some 40,000 people, and about 90% of these are confirmed to have been shot. At the time, while reviewing one such list, Stalin reportedly muttered to no one in particular: "Who's going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years time? No one. Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one." In addition, Stalin dispatched a contingent of NKVD operatives to Mongolia, established a Mongolian version of the NKVD troika and unleashed a bloody purge in which tens of thousands were executed as 'Japanese Spies.' Mongolian ruler Khorloogiin Choibalsan closely followed Stalin's lead.

Forced Deportation - Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics. By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.

During Stalin's rule the following ethnic groups were deported completely or partially: Ukrainians, Poles, Koreans, Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Finns, Bulgarians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Jews. Large numbers of Kulaks, regardless of their nationality, were resettled to Siberia and Central Asia. Deportations took place in appalling conditions, often by cattle truck, and hundreds of thousands of deportees died en route. Those who survived were forced to work without pay in the labour camps. Many of the deportees died of hunger or other conditions.

In the first years of collectivization it was estimated that industrial production would rise by 200% and agricultural production by 50%, but these estimates were not met. Stalin blamed this unanticipated failure on kulaks (rich peasants), who resisted collectivization. (However, kulaks proper made up only 4% of the peasant population; the "kulaks" that Stalin targeted included the slightly better-off peasants who took the brunt of violence from the OGPU and the Komsomol. These peasants were about 60% of the population). Those officially defined as "kulaks," "kulak helpers," and later "ex-kulaks" were to be shot, placed into Gulag labor camps, or deported to remote areas of the country, depending on the charge. Archival data indicates that 20,201 people were executed during 1930, the year of Dekulakization.

Paranoia and Victimisation -The "Doctors' plot" was a plot outlined by Stalin and Soviet officials in 1952 and 1953 whereby several doctors (over half of which were Jewish) allegedly attempted to kill Soviet officials. The prevailing opinion of many scholars outside the Soviet Union is that Stalin intended to use the resulting doctors' trial to launch a massive party purge. The plot is also viewed by many historians as an anti-Semitic provocation. It followed on the heels of the 1952 show trials of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and the secret execution of thirteen members on Stalin's orders in the Night of the Murdered Poets.

Thereafter, in a December Politburo session, Stalin announced that "Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the United States (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they're indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists." To mobilize the Soviet people for his campaign, Stalin ordered TASS and Pravda to issue stories along with Stalin's alleged uncovering of a "Doctors Plot" to assassinate top Soviet leaders, including Stalin, in order to set the stage for show trials.

War Crimes – In some cases, these crimes may have been committed on express orders — as part of the early Soviet Government's policy of Red terror. In other instances, they were committed by regular army troops as retribution against military or civilian personnel of countries involved in conflict with (or the invasion of) the USSR, or those involved in national liberation movements.

Many of these incidents occurred in Central and Eastern Europe before and during World War II, and involved summary executions and mass murder of prisoners of war and mistreatment of civilians in Soviet occupied territories. Although there are documented cases of such incidents, no International Criminal Court or Soviet or Russian tribunal has ever charged any member of the Soviet armed forces with war crimes

In Poland, Nazi atrocities ended by late 1944, but they were replaced by Soviet oppression with the advance of Soviet forces. Soviet soldiers often engaged in plunder, rape, and other crimes against the Poles, causing the population to fear and hate the Soviet regime.

Soldiers of Poland's Home Army (Armia Krajowa) were persecuted, sometimes imprisoned and, in many cases, executed following staged trials. An example of this was the case of Witold Pilecki, the organizer of Auschwitz resistance.

Units of the Red Army carried out campaigns against Polish partisans and civilians. During the Augustów chase 1945, more than 2000 Poles were captured, and about 600 of them were killed.

Polish sources claim that there are cases of mass rapes in Polish cities taken by the Red Army . In Kraków, Soviet entry into the city was accompanied by mass rapes of Polish women and girls, as well as the plunder of private property by Soviet soldiers. According to these sources, this behavior reached such a scale that even Polish communists installed by the Soviet Union were preparing a letter of protest to Joseph Stalin himself, while church masses were held in expectation of a Soviet withdrawal. .

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, Russians, Cossacks, and other nationalities and ethnicities were imprisoned or executed by the NKVD after having been forcibly repatriated by British, French, Canadian and American troops. Many of these were men who fought alongside the Axis forces in the vain expectation that they might secure their countries' independence from Soviet rule although quite a number were also recruited under duress. Some of those eventually repatriated had not previously been Soviet citizens amongst them many women and children. These people were often deemed by the Soviets to be traitors and "Nazi collaborators," and in many cases were shot immediately after being handed over by Allied troops, occurrences of which were reported at the time by British officers, protesting against having to take part. Further information may be found in Operation Keelhaul and in Nikolai Tolstoy's Victims of Yalta.

A study published by the German government in 1989 estimated the death toll of German civilians in eastern Europe at 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II, and 205,000 deaths in the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union] These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin.

Following the Red Army's capture of Berlin in 1945, one of the largest incidents of mass rape took place. Soviet troops reportedly raped German women and girls as young as 8 years old. Estimates of the total number of victims range from tens of thousands to two million.


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

Sunday, May 9, 2010 9:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


MD, thanks for providing further reminders of the facts of reality, defying the delusional views in this thread.

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 5:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


NICARAGUA 1970
Nicaragua such has a long and depressing history of repeated and prolonged US occupation and "involvement" that it could be thought of as a colony of the USA and not just a puppet government (banana republic).

In 1909, Nicaragua was headed by a liberal President, Jose Zelaya. "Zelaya was of Nicaragua's liberal party and enacted a number of progressive programs, including improving public education, building railroads, and establishing steam ship lines and enacting constitutional rights that provided for equal rights, property guarantees, habeas corpus, compulsory vote, compulsory education, the protection of arts and industry, minority representation, and the separation of state powers." However, what really frightened the USA was the prospect that a canal might be built in Nicaragua to rival the planned Panama canal. From 1909 to 1912, the USA supported a conservative military rebel to the tune of millions of dollars, and maintained ships off the Nicaraguan coast. In 1910, the Marines landed in Bluefields, a city heavily populated by foreigners and representing Wall Street, the United Fruit Company, and other foreign capital. The United States militarily occupied Nicaragua from 1912-1933. During this time, the occupation was resisted by Augusto Sandino. This resistance led to the election of liberal Sacasa, who took office in 1933- literally a day before US troop withdrawal. At the insistence of the U.S. Ambassador, he named Anastasio Somoza García as director of the Guardia Nacional (National Guard). "The following month, Sacasa met with the rebel leader Sandino, during which Sandino pledged his loyalty to the new government amnesty and land for his followers. Sandino continued to call for the disbanding of the National Guard and, in February 1934, he was assassinated under orders from Somoza... Early in 1936, Somoza used the National Guard to purge local officials loyal to the president and replace them with his associates."

Thus began the 40-year reign of the Somoza dynasty.

The worst of the Somoza was Anastasios Samoza II. Educated at West Point, Somoza took the opportunity to line his pockets. Much of the foreign aid to rebuild Managua after the devastating 1972 earthquake winds up in Somoza's bank accounts. Eventually though, the CIA-backed dictator falls to the Sandinistas. Daniel Ortega became the leader of Nicaragua by revolution, but was formally elected in 1984 in elections certified to have been "free and fair".

Remnants of Somozas National Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s. Aid to the Contras was initially funneled through Israel, then directly from the USA under Reagan, then again covertly (after the Boland Amendment) funded by arms sales to Iran (Iran-Contra) and drug smuggling. The USA also mined the Nicaraguan harbor.

In total
Quote:

The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering–more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called “freedom fighters.”
.... representing the same kind of "freedom" that Rappy is alway going on about (Freedom of capitalists to do whatever they want).

http://countrystudies.us/nicaragua/13.htm
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/somoza.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Santos_Zelaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


EL SALVADOR 1980
CIA involvement in El Salvador actually begins in 1963,
Quote:

when the U.S. government sent 10 Special Forces personnel to El Salvador to help General Jose Alberto Medrano set up the Organizacion Democratica Nacionalista (ORDEN)-the first paramilitary death squad in that country. These Green Berets assisted in the organization and indoctrination of rural "civic" squads which gathered intelligence and carried out political assassinations in coordination with the Salvadoran military.
Now, there is compelling evidence to show that for over 30 years, members of the U.S. military and the CIA have helped organize, train, and fund death squad activity in El Salvador. In [1982-1990] six Salvadoran military deserters have publicly acknowledged their participation in the death squads. Their stories are notable because they not only confirm suspicions that the death squads are made up of members of the Salvadoran military, but also because each one implicates U.S. personnel in death squad activity.... CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.


www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html

Allegations by a high-ranking DEA officer implicate the CIA in drug-smuggling through El Salvador to fund the Contra War.

www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/ch10p2.htm

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I will reply to your posts after I've finished the list.

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HONDURAS 1986

Like Nicaragua, United States involvement is long and repeated, starting with the 1907 Marine invasion to protect the banana trade. Banana companies are literally the power behind the throne.
Quote:

In 1913 United Fruit established the Tela Railroad Company and shortly thereafter a similar subsidiary, the Trujillo Railroad Company. The railroad companies were given huge land subsidies by the Honduran government for each kilometer of track they constructed. The government expected that in exchange for land the railroad companies would ultimately build a national rail system, providing the capital with its long-sought access to the Caribbean. The banana companies, however, had other ideas in mind. They used the railroads to open up new banana lands, rather than to reach existing cities. Through the resultant land subsidies, they soon came to control the overwhelming share of the best land along the Caribbean coast. Coastal cities such as La Ceiba, Tela, and Trujillo and towns further inland such as El Progreso and La Lima became virtual company towns, and the power of the companies often exceeded the authority wielded in the region by local governments.


http://countrystudies.us/honduras/16.htm
The United States again invaded in 1912 to "protect US economic interests", in 1919 during the election campaign, and in 1924-25 during another election. Following were years years of conservative government which hewed closely to the needs of international capital,
Quote:

Declassified documents, from the CIA Inspector General, begin with a heavily redacted 21 July 1984 cable to the National Security Council, stating that Gen. Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, head of the Honduras military, ordered the establishment of the 316th Military Intelligence Battalion (316 MI Bn) in Honduras 1987.


Anyway, I'm out of time, but I'll finish up with Honduras later.

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Eventually though, the CIA-backed dictator falls to the Sandinistas. Daniel Ortega became the leader of Nicaragua by revolution, but was formally elected in 1984 in elections certified to have been "free and fair".


Kind'a wonder about the "free and fair"

Quote:

In March 1982 the Sandinistas declared an official State of Emergency. They argued that this was a response to attacks by counter-revolutionary forces.[34] The State of Emergency lasted six years, until January 1988, when it was lifted.

Under the new "Law for the Maintenance of Order and Public Security" the "Tribunales Populares Anti-Somozistas" allowed for the indefinite holding of suspected counter-revolutionaries without trial. The State of Emergency, however, most notably affected rights and guarantees contained in the "Statute on Rights and Guarantees of Nicaraguans.[35] Many civil liberties were curtailed or canceled such as the freedom to organize demonstrations, the inviolability of the home, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and, the freedom to strike.[35]

All independent news program broadcasts were suspended. In total, twenty-four programs were cancelled. In addition, Sandinista censor Nelba Cecilia Blandón issued a decree ordering all radio stations to hook up every six hours to government radio station, La Voz de La Defensa de La Patria.[36]

The rights affected also included certain procedural guarantees in the case of detention including habeas corpus.[35] The State of Emergency was not lifted during the 1984 elections. There were many instances where rallies of opposition parties were physically broken up by Sandinsta youth or pro-Sandinista mobs. Opponents to the State of Emergency argued its intent was to crush resistance to the FSLN. James Wheelock justified the actions of the Directorate by saying "... We are annulling the license of the false prophets and the oligarchs to attack the revolution."[37] On October 5, 1985 the Sandinistas broadened the 1982 State of Emergency and suspended many more civil rights. A new regulation also forced any organization outside of the government to first submit any statement it wanted to make public to the censorsip bureau for prior censorship.[38] Notably, emergency measures were already in place before 1982 under the FSLN. In December 1979 special courts called "Tribunales Especiales" were established to process trial of ex-Guardia and Contra rebels. These courts operated through relaxed rules of evidence and due process and were often staffed by new law students and inexperienced lawyers. Under these courts, up to 8,000 ex-Guardia members were tried. By 1986 only 2157 remained in incarceration, out of these, only 39 were left alive by 1989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

From the same cite.

Quote:

Armed opposition to the Sandinista Government eventually divided into two main groups: ...and the Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE) Democratic Revolutionary Alliance, a group that had existed since before the FSLN and was led by Sandinista founder and former FSLN supreme commander, Edén Pastora, a.k.a. "Commander Zero".[32] and Milpistas, former anti-Somoza rural militias, which eventually formed the largest pool of recruits for the Contras.


So many, or maybe most, Contras were ex-Sandinistas?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 7:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Just to follow up on deaths due to Socialism, let's not forget that other powerhouse, the People's Republic of China.

Not the definitive source, but plenty of good references to give an idea.

Quote:

Chinese Civil War. (1945-49): 2 500 000 [make link]
Bercovitch & Jackson: 100,000
Dan Smith: 1,000,000
Eckhardt: 1,000,000 from all causes
Small & Singer: 1,000,000 battle deaths
Wallechinsky: 1,200,000 battle deaths
Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971): 1,250,000
Gilbert, citing Ho Ping-ti: 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 total deaths
Our Times: 3,000,000
Rummel:
War Dead: 1,201,000
Democide by Guomindang: 2,645,000
Democide by Communists: 2,323,000
Famine: 25,000
TOTAL: 6,194,000

People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000

Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
Labor Camps: 20M
Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M

Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine (1996)
Estimates of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward, 1959-61:
Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (1984): 30M excess deaths (acc2 Becker: "the most reliable estimate we have")
Wang Weizhi, Contemporary Chinese Population (1988): 19.5M deaths
Jin Hui (1993): 40M population loss due to "abnormal deaths and reduced births"
Chen Yizi of the System Reform Inst.: 43-46M deaths
Brzezinski:
Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
Cultural Revolution: 1-2 million
TOTAL: 29 million deaths under Mao

Daniel Chirot:
Land reform, 1949-56
According to Zhou Enlai: 830,000
According to Mao Zedong: 2-3M
Great Leap Forward: 20-40 million deaths.
Cultural Revolution: 1-20 million
Jung Chang, Mao: the Unknown Story (2005)
Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries, 1950-51: 3M by execution, mob or suicide
Three-Anti Campaign, 1952-53: 200,000-300,000 suicides
Great Leap Forward, 1958-61: 38M of starvation and overwork
Cultural Revolution, 1966-76: > 3M died violent deaths
Laogai camp deaths, 1949-76: 27M
TOTAL under Mao: 70M

Dictionary of 20C World History: around a half million died in Cultural Rev.
Eckhardt:
Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1967-68): 50,000
Gilbert:
1958-61 Famine: 30 million deaths.
Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979):
They estimate the body count under Mao to be 38,000,000 to 67,000,000.
Cited by G & P:
Walker Report (see below): 44.3M to 63.8M deaths.
The Government Information Office of Taiwan (18 Sept. 1970): 37M deaths in the PRC.
A Radio Moscow report (7 Apr. 1969): 26.4M people had been exterminated in China.
(NOTE: Obviously the Soviets and Taiwanese would, as enemies, be strongly motivated to exaggerate.)
Guinness Book of World Records:
Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000.
Harff and Gurr:
KMT cadre, rich peasants, landlords (1950-51): 800,000-3,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1966-75): 400,000-850,000
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen: 27M death toll, incl. 2M in Cultural Revolution
Paul Johnson doesn't give an overall total, but he gives estimates for the principle individual mass dyings of the Mao years:
Land reform, first years of PRC: at least 2 million people perished.
Great Leap Forward: "how many millions died ... is a matter of conjecture."
Cultural Revolution: 400,000, calling the 3 Feb. 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse, "The most widely respected figure".
Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China and After (1977, 1999), doesn't give an overall total either, but he does give estimates for the three principle mass dyings of the Mao years:
Terror against the counterrevolutionaries: 2 million people executed during the first three years of the PRC.
Great Leap Forward: 15-30 million famine-related deaths.
Cultural Revolution: 400,000, citing a 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse.
R. J. Rummel:
Estimate:
Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
The principle episodes being...
All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
War: 3,399,000
Famine: 34,500,000
Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
TOTAL: 72,260,000

Cited in Rummel:
Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M direct/indirect deaths.
World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist Tyranny (1971): 64.5M
Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above)
Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War).
Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979): 39.9M
Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies, Deaths in China Due To Communism: 3M to 4M death toll, excluding famine.
Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971, report to the US Senate Committee of the Judiciary) "Casualties to Communism" (deaths):
1st Civil War (1927-36): .25-.5M
Fighting during Sino-Japanese War (1937-45): 50,000
2nd Civil War (1945-49): 1.25M
Land Reform prior to Liberation: 0.5-1.0M
Political liquidation campaigns: 15-30M
Korean War: 0.5-1.234M
Great Leap Forward: 1-2M
Struggle with minorities: 0.5-1.0M
Cultural Revolution: .25-.5M
Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M
TOTAL: 34.3M to 63.784M
TOTAL FOR PRC: 32M to 59.5M
July 17, 1994, Washington Post (Great Leap Forward 1959-61)
Shanghai University journal, Society: > 40 million
Cong Jin: 40 million
Chen Yizi: 43 million in the famine. 80 million total as a result of Mao's policies.
Weekly Standard, 29 Sept. 1997, "The Laogai Archipelago" by D. Aikman:
Between 1949 and 1997, 50M prisoners passed through the labor camps, and 15,000,000 died (citing Harry Wu)
WHPSI: 1,633,319 political executions and 25,961 deaths from political violence, 1948-77. TOTAL: 1,659,280
Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here.
Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are:
Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)
Great Leap Forward: 31-33M (14 estimates)
Cultural Revolution: 1M (13 estimates)
Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below)
Labor Camps: 20M (5 estimates)
This produces a total of some 54,750,000 to 56,900,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 5 estimates.
Notice that many early body counts (such as Walker) completely miss the famine during the Great Leap Forward, which was largely unknown in the west until around 1980. There are two contradictory ways to assess those early estimates which ignore the famine:
"If these are the numbers that they came up with without the famine, imagine how high the true number will be once you add the famine deaths."
"Can we trust any of these numbers? After all, if they missed such a huge famine, they can't have known very much about what was going on inside China."
... so this line of reasoning will get us nowhere. In fact, the median of the 7 estimate that predate 1980 is 45.7M, which is almost the same as the median of the 7 estimates that post-date 1980 -- 58M. (At this scale, a 12M difference counts as "almost the same".)


Tibet (1950 et seq.): 600 000
Chinese occupation. (For the most part, it's already been included in the numbers above.)
Free Tibet Campaign [ http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html]
Tibetans killed by the Chinese since 1950: 1,200,000
Died in prisons and labour camps between 1950 and 1984: up to 260,000
1959 Uprising: 430,000 died
K. in Reprisals: 87,000
Our Times: 1,200,000
Courtois: 600,000 - 1,200,000
Walker, Robert: 500,000-1,000,000 (all ethnic minorities)
Rummel: 375,000 democides inflicted on etnic minorities
... incl 150,000 Tibetans
Porter: 100,000 to 150,000.
Eckhardt:
1950-51 War: 2,000 civ.
1956-59 Revolt: 60,000 civ. + 40,000 mil. = 100,000
Harff and Gurr: 65,000 Tibetan nationalists, landowners, Buddhists killed, 1959
Small & Singer say that China lost 40,000 soldiers in Tibet between 1956 and '59.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 1:56 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Post War Poland - An inherent part of the Sovietization was a rule of terror started by the NKVD and other Soviet agencies. The first victims of the new order were approximately 250,000 Polish prisoners of war captured by the USSR during and after the Polish Defensive War.[30] As the Soviet Union did not sign any international convention on rules of war, they were denied the status of prisoners of war and instead almost all of the captured officers and a large number of ordinary soldiers[31] were then murdered (see Katyn massacre) or sent to Gulag.[32] Of the 10,000-12,000 Poles sent to Kolyma in 1940–41, most POWs, only 583 men survived, released in 1942 to join the Polish Armed Forces in the East.[33] Out of Anders's 80,000 evacuees from Soviet Union gathered in Great Britain only 310 volunteered to return to Poland in 1947.[34]

The Katyn massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, 'Katyń crime'; Russian: Катынский расстрел), was a mass murder of Polish nationals carried out by the Soviet secret police NKVD in April-May 1940. It was based on Lavrentiy Beria's proposal to execute all members of the Polish Officer Corps, dated 5 March 1940. This official document was then approved and signed by the Soviet Politburo, including Joseph Stalin.[1][2][3] The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, the most commonly cited number being 21,768.[4] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkov prisons and elsewhere.[5] About 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, the rest being Polish doctors, professors, lawmakers, police officers, and other public servants arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, saboteurs, landowners, factory owners, lawyers, priests, and officials."[4] Since Poland's conscription system required every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,[6] the NKVD was able to round up much of the Polish intelligentsia, and the Russian, Ukrainian, Protestant, Muslim Tatar, Jewish, Georgian,[7] and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.[8]

The term "Katyn massacre" originally referred specifically to the massacre at Katyn Forest, near the villages of Katyn and Gnezdovo (ca. 19 kilometres (12 mi) west of Smolensk, Russia), of Polish military officers in the Kozelsk prisoner-of-war camp. This was the largest of the simultaneous executions of prisoners of war from geographically distant Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps,[9] and the executions of political prisoners from West Belarus and West Ukraine,[10] shot at Katyn Forest, at the NKVD headquarters in Smolensk, at a Smolensk slaughterhouse,[1] and at prisons in Kalinin (Tver), Kharkov, Moscow, and other Soviet cities.[4] The Belorussian and Ukrainian Katyn Lists are NKVD lists of names of Polish prisoners to be murdered at various locations in Belarus and Western Ukraine.[4] The modern Polish investigation of the Katyn massacre covered not only the massacre at Katyn forest, but also the other mass murders mentioned above. There are Polish organisations such as the Katyn Committee and the Federation of Katyn Families, which again are inclusive of victims of the various mass murders at the various locations.[4]

Nazi Germany announced the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn Forest in 1943. The revelation led to the end of diplomatic relations between Moscow and the London-based Polish government-in-exile. The Soviet Union continued to deny responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it officially acknowledged and condemned the perpetration of the killings by the NKVD,[4][11][12] as well as the subsequent cover-up.[13]

An investigation conducted by the Prosecutor's General Office of the Soviet Union (1990-1991) and the Russian Federation (1991-2004), has confirmed Soviet responsibility for the massacres. It was able to confirm the deaths of 1,803 Polish citizens but refused to classify this action as a war crime or an act of genocide. The investigation was closed on grounds that the perpetrators of the massacre were already dead. The Russian government also does not classify the dead as victims of Stalinist repression, which bars formal posthumous rehabilitation.




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

Monday, May 10, 2010 2:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


The Rape of Berlin

An extract of a Telegraph review of Anthony Beevor's excellent book on this subject:

Against this horrific background, Stalin and his commanders condoned or even justified rape, not only against Germans but also their allies in Hungary, Romania and Croatia. When the Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas protested to Stalin, the dictator exploded: "Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?"

And when German Communists warned him that the rapes were turning the population against them, Stalin fumed: "I will not allow anyone to drag the reputation of the Red Army in the mud."

The rapes had begun as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944. In many towns and villages every female, aged from 10 to 80, was raped. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate who was then a young officer, described the horror in his narrative poem Prussian Nights: "The little daughter's on the mattress,/Dead. How many have been on it/A platoon, a company perhaps?"

But Solzhenitsyn was rare: most of his comrades regarded rape as legitimate. As the offensive struck deep into Germany, the orders of Marshal Zhukov, their commander, stated: "Woe to the land of the murderers. We will get a terrible revenge for everything."

By the time the Red Army reached Berlin its reputation, reinforced by Nazi propaganda, had already terrified the population, many of whom fled. Though the hopeless struggle came to an end in May 1945, the ordeal of German women did not.

How many German women were raped? One can only guess, but a high proportion of at least 15 million women who either lived in the Soviet Union zone or were expelled from the eastern provinces. The scale of rape is suggested by the fact that about two million women had illegal abortions every year between 1945 and 1948.


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

Monday, May 10, 2010 2:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Let's not forget the Nazis treatment of the Red Army, either.

During Operation Barbarossa, the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union (USSR), and the subsequent German–Soviet War, millions of Red Army prisoners of war were taken. Some of them were arbitrarily executed in the field by the German forces, died under inhuman conditions in German prisoner of war camps and during ruthless death marches from the front lines, or were shipped to Nazi concentration camps for extermination.

According to the estimate by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), some 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% (nearing the European Jewish death rate of over 60%[6]) and may be contrasted with only 8,300 out of 231,000 British and American prisoners, or 3.6%.[7] Some estimates range as high as 5 million dead, including these killed immediately after surrendering (an indeterminate, although certainly very large number).[8][9] Only 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were of Jewish ethnicity.[10] Among those who died was Stalin's son, Yakov Dzhugashvili.

The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through starvation,[11] exposure, and summary execution, in what has been called, along with the Rwandan Genocide, an instance of "the most concentrated mass killing in human history (...) eclipsing the most exterminatory months of the Jewish Holocaust".[12] By September 1941, the mortality rate among Soviet POWs was in the order of 1% per day.[9] According to the USHMM, by the winter of 1941, "starvation and disease resulted in mass death of unimaginable proportions".[13] This deliberate starvation, leading many desperate prisoners to resort to acts of cannibalism,[12] was Nazi policy in spite of food being available,[14] in accordance to the Hunger Plan developed by the Reich Minister of Food Herbert Backe.

From Wiki

Interestingly, Stalin refused to negotiate for the release of his son,


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

Monday, May 10, 2010 3:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1945

Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets.
Quote:

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany for employment by the United States in the aftermath of World War II (1939–45). It was executed by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning Soviet–American Cold War (1945–91), one purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific knowledge and expertise to the USSR and the UK.

Although the JIOA’s recruitment of German scientists began after the European Allied victory (8 May 1945), US President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman's order expressly excluded anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism.” Said restriction would have rendered ineligible most of the scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a “menace to the security of the Allied Forces”. To circumvent President Truman’s anti-Nazi order and the Allied Potsdam and Yalta agreements, the JIOA worked independently to create false employment and political biographies for the scientists. The JIOA also expunged from the public record the scientists' Nazi Party memberships and régime affiliations. Once “bleached” of their Nazism, the US Government granted the scientists security clearance to work in the United States. Paperclip, the project’s operational name, derived from the paperclips used to attach the scientists’ new political personæ to their “US Government Scientist” JIOA personnel files.

In addition, Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union, Alfred Six, Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler’s) were also recruited by the Americans to spy on Russia.
Quote:

The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years.. However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap."

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

Monday, May 10, 2010 6:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


LAOS 1950-1973
The United States was involved in Laos since roughly 1950, first supporting the French colonial power and then fighting the popular Pathet Lao. Eventually the United States CIA will launch "the largest paramilitary operation in the history of the Agency", and more bombs will be dropped on Laos then four time the number of bombs dropped on Europe during all of World War II, creating a commercial airline front called CAT (later re-named to Air America), allegedly smuggling drugs to fund black ops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Laos

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1945

Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets.



But you had no problem with Sukarno, who sided with the Japanese, raised labor and fighting forces for them numbering in the millions, made propaganda speeches for them, and was decorated by the Japanese Emperor.

Reading biographies of Von Braun and others, they only joined the Nazi party because it was a requirement for them to keep working on rocketry.

Quote:


The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years...



Why not just post a direct link to Mr. Kangas' "Timeline of CIA Atrocities", instead of copying bits at a time. Here it is.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
LAOS 1950-1973
The United States was involved in Laos since roughly 1950, first supporting the French colonial power and then fighting the popular Pathet Lao. Eventually the United States CIA will launch "the largest paramilitary operation in the history of the Agency", and more bombs will be dropped on Laos then four time the number of bombs dropped on Europe during all of World War II, creating a commercial airline front called CAT (later re-named to Air America), allegedly smuggling drugs to fund black ops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Laos



Why fight in Laos? Could it have been the Soviet support for the Pathet Lao (i.e. SOVIET-BACKED REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY?) and the NVA acting as cadre? Or later the entry of divisions of NVA tanks and troops doing most of the PAthet Lao's fighting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos

Hmm. and why drop bombs on Laos? Aside from the NVA incursions above, could it possibly have been because the VC and NVA that were attacking South Vietnam were using it as a transportation corridor (the Ho Chi Minh Trail, perhaps?) as well as for rest and training bases? You know, if those folks had stayed peacefully at home, I bet the US would have dropped a lot fewer bombs - like none.

And let's not forget how wonderfully the 'liberation' of Laos turned out.
-It's still a one-party dictatorship with other political parties or movements proscribed.
-Press freedom ranking is 169 out of 175 (7th worst in the world) http://www.keyloom.com/2010/02/08/laos-press-freedom-ranking/
-Child labor problems http://www.legalgreattips.com/labor-law/child-labor/Child-Labor-Issues
-In-Laos.html

-Corruption "...is perceived as rampant. Laos ranks 151st out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2008, a slight improvement over 2007." http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Laos

Edit to add:
-Literacy rates. 52.8% for the total population (139 of 160). 38.1% for women (142 of 157). http://www.nationmaster.com/country/la-laos/edu-education
-Transparency rating of 1.9 out of 10 (171 of 180) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This deliberate starvation, leading many desperate prisoners to resort to acts of cannibalism...



Speaking of cannibalism, let's not forget the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in China. Talk about successful indoctrination.

Quote:

Some of the most extreme violence took place in the southern province of Guangxi, where a Chinese journalist found a "disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and 'class struggle.'"[31] Senior party historians acknowledge that "In a few places, it even happened that 'counterrevolutionaries' were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers]."[32] Not even the minor children of 'enemies of the people' were spared, as more than a few were tortured and bludgeoned to death, dismembered and some of their organs - hearts, livers, and genitals - eaten during 'human flesh banquets'.[33] As a result of this frenzied killing and 'obligatory cannibalism', an estimated 100,000 people were killed in Guangxi alone.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution




"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CUBA 1906-09, 1912, 1917-33
Troops in Cuba multiple times, in support of the usual American economic interests.

PANAMA 1901-14, 1918-20, 1925, 1958, 1964, 1989-?
US troops sent in to support the usual American economic interests. Thousands killed in an entirely specious invasion based on the pretext that Panama is an important drug-smuggling nation. After the invasion, drug smuggling into the USA continues without a blip. Nobody cares that they were lied to.

URUGUAY 1947, 1965+
Bombers deployed in 1947. The US Office of Public Safety (OPS) began operating in Uruguay in 1965. The US Office of Public Safety trained Uruguayan police and intelligence in policing and interrogation techniques. US support continues through the military rule 1973-1985.

HAITI 1914-1934
Military occupation "began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of then President of the United States Woodrow Wilson to "protect American and foreign" interests." including the National City Bank of New York. During this time, large sums of money were extracted from the Haitian economy to repay foreign debt.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910
Seized from Spain in a war in which 600,000 were killed.

SAUDI ARABIA
Continuing United States support for a monarchy which violates human rights and supports terrorism.

ISRAEL
Continuing support for a government which systematically violates the human rights of Palestinians, holding them in an "open air prison" which is surrounded on all side, forbidden to import/ export any goods, routinely bombed and occasionally invaded by an overwhelmingly superior force.

Have not listed all of our interventions, invasions, etc. For example, did not discuss our political support/ recognition of various regimes such as Franco's Spain, but will briefly discuss this list, respond to previous posts, and then move on to the effects of our economic policies.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


MAGON- Nobody is saying that Stalin or Mao were good people. They were not, and the world is better off with them dead. As a lieutenant in the Polish cavalry, my dad was captured by the Soviets. He escaped the Katyn massacre by claiming he was an enlisted man, and explained away his soft hands by saying he was a photographer. He did a stint in a Ukraine tin mine, which he escaped, and then in a Siberian labor camp as a punishment. All in all though, it was better that he was captured by the Russians and not the Nazis.

And I can dig up scenes just as horrific in Afghanistan, atrocities committed by the so-called mujahideen, and Taliban, and the warlords, all of whom we supported. Rapes against girls and women, carried out privately in the home. People punished by being crushed by a tank. Being bombed back inot the stone age, widespread starvation and total oppression of the female half of the population, all because the USA couldn't stand the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.

This will be part of my analysis.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
CUBA 1906-09, 1912, 1917-33
Troops in Cuba multiple times, in support of the usual American economic interests.


Whereas we could have just kept it.
Seems there might have been reason to intervine during that period, with rebellions and coup attampts against the established government and an attempt to divide the country into seperate units based on color. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

Quote:

PANAMA 1901-14, 1918-20, 1925, 1958, 1964, 1989-?
US troops sent in to support the usual American economic interests.


Also supported Pamanamian independence from Columbia in 1903. Invasion in 1989 overthrew the right-wing dictatorship of Manuel Noriega. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama

I'd need cites for your other dates.

Quote:

URUGUAY 1947, 1965+
Bombers deployed in 1947.

Need a cite.
Quote:

The US Office of Public Safety (OPS) began operating in Uruguay in 1965. The US Office of Public Safety trained Uruguayan police and intelligence in policing and interrogation techniques. US support continues through the military rule 1973-1985.
And peacefully handed off to a civilian government after elections held in 1984. Democratic government continues to this day. Compare/contrast with Cuba, where the 'liberation forces' won and imposed a Communist Dictatorship which continues to this day.

Quote:

HAITI 1914-1934
Military occupation "began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of then President of the United States Woodrow Wilson to "protect American and foreign" interests." including the National City Bank of New York. During this time, large sums of money were extracted from the Haitian economy to repay foreign debt.

Don't forget that British and German forces also landed. Seems there might have been good reason to provide protection to foreign nationals.
"Between 1911 and 1915, a series of political assassinations and forced exiles saw the presidency of Haiti change six times.[1] Various revolutionary armies carried out this series of coups. Each was formed by cacos, or peasant brigands from the mountains of the north, along the porous Dominican border, who were enlisted by rival political factions under the promises of money, which would be paid after a successful revolution, and the opportunity to plunder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti

Quote:

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910
Seized from Spain in a war in which 600,000 were killed.


Actually, Spain ceded the Phillipines to the U.S. for $20 million. Casualties in the Spanish-American war (including disease)were around 3,500 for the U.S. and 65,000 for Spain.

Now the American-Phillipine war had more casualties and was fought with terror and massacre on both sides. This one I'll agree was a blot on our honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
But we did grant the Phillipines autonomy in 1916, Commonwealth status in 1935, and, after liberating them from Japanese conquest in WWII, independence in 1946.

Quote:

SAUDI ARABIA
Continuing United States support for a monarchy which violates human rights and supports terrorism.


Sure was a convenient place to stage for the liberation of Kuwait, though.

Quote:

ISRAEL
Continuing support for a government which systematically violates the human rights of Palestinians, holding them in an "open air prison" which is surrounded on all side, forbidden to import/ export any goods, routinely bombed and occasionally invaded by an overwhelmingly superior force.


Although it started off as support of a small nation surrounded by folks who wanted them gone, I'll agree that support of Israel has turned sour, due to the Israeli's increasing forgetfullness of what it's like to be oppressed.

Quote:

Have not listed all of our interventions, invasions, etc. For example, did not discuss our political support/ recognition of various regimes such as Franco's Spain, but will briefly discuss this list, respond to previous posts, and then move on to the effects of our economic policies.


Looking forward to it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL