American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14154
PAGE 1 of 2
Hi,
A little history seems to have shown up online. Thought I'd drop it here in case anyone was interested.
1963: American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1705
Submitted by: njona "by William Blum
May 14, 2004
In July 1958, Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. Though somewhat of a reformist, he was by no means any kind of radical. His action, however, awakened revolutionary fervor in the masses and increased the influence of the Iraqi Communist Party.
By April of the following year, CIA Director Allen Dulles, with his customary hyperbole, was telling Congress that the Iraqi Communists were close to a “complete takeover” and the situation in that country was “the most dangerous in the world today.” In actuality, Kassem aimed at being a neutralist in the Cold War and pursued rather inconsistent policies toward the Iraqi Communists, never allowing them formal representation in his cabinet, nor even full legality, though they strongly desired both. He tried to maintain power by playing the Communists off against other ideological groups...
A secret plan for a joint US-Turkish invasion of the country was drafted by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the 1958 coup. Reportedly, only Soviet threats to intercede on Iraq’s side forced Washington to hold back. But in 1960, the United States began to fund the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq who were fighting for a measure of autonomy and the CIA undertook an assassination attempt against Kassem, which was unsuccessful.
The Iraqi leader made himself even more of a marked man when, in that same year, he began to help create the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which challenged the stranglehold Western oil companies had on the marketing of Arab oil; and in 1962 he created a national oil company to exploit the nation’s oil.
In February 1963, Kassem told the French daily, Le Monde, that he had received a note from Washington -- "in terms scarcely veiled, calling upon me to change my attitude, under threat of sanctions against Iraq... All our trouble with the imperialists [the US and the UK] began the day we claimed our legitimate rights to Kuwait." (Kuwait was a key element in US and UK hegemonic designs over mid-east oil.)
A few days after Kassem’s remarks were published, he was overthrown in a coup and summarily executed; thousands of communists were killed.
The State Department soon informed the press that it was pleased that the new regime would respect international agreements and was not interested in nationalizing the giant Iraq Petroleum Co., of which the US was a major owner. The new government, at least for the time being, also cooled its claim to Kuwait.
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me elaborate, if this hypothetical IBM CEO were to claim that he was to declare bankruptcy and I were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them. So my point is that it is disingenuous to claim that the US/Britain assassinated someone, when actually all they did was support their interests in this part of the world.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really getting sick of these sureal analogies, e.g: supporting a political take-over involving the deaths of thousands is like supporting IBM when a new CEO doesn't do what you want. When human lives are at stake the rules really oughta change. It seems to me that it is exactly the kind of thinking that can equate "business deal" and "military coup" that fuels our government's overseas adventurism.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Odd that you seem to define murder as just another "business deal." Perhaps you are grossly missing the point, or one hell of an aggressive negotiator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, good gravy, no Finn, I'm pretty sure you have grossly misunderstood the point. Would somebody care to help Finn out here? I'm gonna be late for work if I write another line...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[BI were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment.
It's this line I dont understand, and I think it's HK's problem too-Maybe you arent being clear enough so we're not getting you- If you are sending funds to help remove someone, by force, which involves a murder, how are you not causing it or condoning it?- By assisting (without being coerced yourself) you are expressly condoning an action, and I'm not sure how your argument follows-
If I want someone dead or gone, and I give someone the money and gun to do it, I'm to blame when that person gets killed- I have abetted a murder- They put people in jail in this country for that, look at the hockey player (from my home team no less) that is going to jail for a murder-for-hire plot to kill his agent- He was just providing the funds, yet ultimately he is considered responsible-
It's the same thing in this instance- Any country's government that provided backing for an action is responsible for that action and its consequences- Whether it protects our interests or not, it is still assassination- Now, I'm not saying that a country doesnt have to do bad things sometimes to remove threats or protect interests, its a fact of life- But, lets not bandy words about what it is- It's murder with the goal of protecting our interests- That's what we dont follow- You cannot be involved yet not be responsible-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it's a vague article in a way. The language is very 1950s with the 'support' and all (must have been written by some old guy). That's why people get confused and forget the reality - people were killed, laws were broken, and the West lied about it.
Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?
And that's the point. We in the West have a lot of blood on our hands and if we don't fess up to the truth and kick out the 
in the White House (as they are the leader of the West... that is, the ones with all the money and power) and completely commit to our high sounding words ... meaning the words that start with WE THE PEOPLE...
Well, it means we will be living in a terrible world... oh wait. Too late. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps I need to spell out the context.
Soviet Russia was the most totalitarian, brutal and powerful regime that has existed, perhaps in history. The Soviets sought to conquer as much of the world as possible. In some cases, they sent an invading arming in to acquire that nation, but the problem they faced especially in the later half of the century was that the US/Britain military power and economic power combined (not military power alone) was enough to counter the Soviet arsenal. This, and this alone, maintained Western Europe free. To that end it was difficult for the Soviets to outwardly invade any nation on it wanted, as it sought to do in the early half of the century, although in competition with Nazi Germany. So the Soviets went with underground revolts wherever possible. Supply money and arms and big promises to the leaders of the Communist Parties of many nations from South/Central America to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. They were successful on many occasions, acquiring allies and puppet nations all over the world.
Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire. Afghanistan was a primitive, landlocked nation that the Soviets believed the West cared little about. So they simply invaded this nation. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand were more difficult. They were supported by the US, primarily because of the strategic importance in the oil trade. In outward invasion of either Iran or Iraq would have begun World War III.
The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible. The Soviets intent was to concur and acquire Iran and Iraq. If the Soviets had been successful in acquiring the Middle East as they had been in acquiring much of Central Asia, this would have put the world's largest oil reserve at their command, and likely would have turned the balance of power on the world stage. Ultimately the Soviets lost the Cold War, but it didn’t have to be that way. If they had acquired the Middle East, they may have won.
So that is the context under which this 1963 Iraqi revolt occurred, as far as the US/Britian involvment is concerned. The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site. How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision, not the US or Britain. That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.
"I didn't know that by giving them weapons, money, and intel on their enemy, that they'd kill him" is a lame ass response.
If you don't specify how the resources you give are to be used, then you might as well attach a note that says, "By any means necessary."
So, yes, if the US or Brit governments supplied money to persons who did the deed, they are partially responsible. (Unless you want to pretend that the governments involved are very, very naive and thought the people that they supplied with resources were going to print and distribute fliers and political advertisements.)
Now, maybe you support the assasination. Maybe you don't. But neither position requires that you stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not what it is.
--Anthony
"Liberty should not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.
Try to remember all actions can act in both directions
" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.
I just got back from being gone all day, so I'll reply, sorry to bump this back up- But I'm curious as to why you'd throw this obvious insult into a friendly discussion- This is a fallacy, for starters, and it's insulting at the least- You're implying that I cant see the big picture because I'm uninformed about what went on in the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the years leading up to it-
Sad to say, this is incorrect, and I hate it when people on this thread do this- It's not like we all wear badges saying, this is what my education level is, lets talk like this- I talk on these threads like I'd have a conversation, not academically- Trust me, I know the facts; my minor was in the Soviet/Post-Soviet political system-I'm not disagreeing with you that the Cold War Soviet regime was not a good thing, I agree completely- (for a good start, read McAuley's book on the Soviets, and I'd say literature-wise read Koestler's Darkness at Noon)-But we're paying now for our actions in stopping them, namely funding Afgheni rebels and Irani/Iraqi insurgents- Best way to fight atheistic Communism is to put radical religious groups in power, no doubt about it (look at what we did in S.America in the 70's as an example of regime change)-
But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-
Even when we as a nation make terrible choices that uphold the greatest good imaginable, we must admit to ourselves that we have committed horrible acts, and say that maybe there could have been a better way- We must always strive to do the greatest good and if we can, no harm- Otherwise it makes us no better than those we are fighting against-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe, maybe not. It depends on your degree of knowledge, but that’s neither here nor there. The author of this thread did not say partial responsibility. The author said the US and Britain assassinated the leader of this country.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you supply resources of money or information to remove someone, and you don't specify how, then you are partially responsible.
Quote:Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So by your agruement, If some of us felt Bush was acting against our own best interests, and we decided to send Bin Laden some cash to help him act against Bush......... This would be all well and good.
SEVENPERCENT:
I fail to see the insult (or the fallacy) you are referring to, but it was unintentional either way. I don’t know whether you can see the big picture or not, and I have no desire to judge you based on your education level. I’m fairly sure, however, that with your implication that the US purposely installed radical religious groups to combat communism, you might possibly be missing some subtleties somewhere.
But this is what I really find interesting.
Quote:Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But the facts are, that when you fund murderous rebels, even for a good cause -and supporting Democracy is the greatest cause there is- you are still condoning murder- Is one murder worse than 100 million? Not unless you're that murder victim's family or supporters, then by God it sure the hell is- We couch ourselves in cute euphemisms like 'protecting interests' or 'regime change,' but what we're really saying is 'murdering for our own interests'-
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal, but I’m afraid I would have to emphatically disagree with the remainder, at least how I am understanding it. If you are that one person who dies so that 100 million could live, then I would admit that it would be a major bummer for you and your family. So explain to me how it is not just as big a bummer on the other side, only a 100 million times worse! If your point of view is really one in which you see no difference between an outcome in which one person dies and an outcome in which a 100 million die, I think that there is probably some picture somewhere you’re not seeing.
You misunderstand me- If one has to die so a million can live, that's a noble, lofty thing- But how that person dies is the point you are missing- If one man is murdered so a million can live, then we must also still say that while a noble sacrifice or just cause, that the man was murdered- I do see the difference between the outcome of millions dying vs. one man dying, but it still has to be called like it is- Does one evil act you commit compared to the hundreds of evil acts another commits make you equals? Of course not- But does that make your act any less evil? No, it does not-
We as a nation have got to realize that sometimes we make mistakes, or bad judgements- We unwittingly helped create the Taliban (by supplying the Mujahadeen freedom fighters), as well as Saddam Hussein (by funding his arms program to defeat Iran) and the various Ayatollahs in Iran (which we learned about in the 80's)- All for a good cause, keeping the world free from Communism, etc., but all done nonetheless- Now we're paying for many of those choices with blood-This thread started the discussion that when you support a choice of actions, for good or ill, that leave men dead, you are responsible for the blood spilled- Same with murder for hire, same with 'regime change'-
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you? I'm not sure that
Quote:cuts it- In that respect, I think that is part of the problem with our foreign policy as of late- We are becoming so intent on the big picture, we are failing to see the human side of it- We forget sometimes that 'stabilizing a region' means people (children, often) have to die, and then cannot understand why we become disliked- We forget that while we are only trying to help, there are people who mistake that for aggression, which only makes it harder- Sometimes you have to knuckle down, admit you might be wrong (or guilty, or whatever), ask for help, and beg for a chance to do better- That's what is noble, and that is nearly impossible-
major bummer for you and your family
But doing the impossible makes us mighty-
And I apologize for taking your statement of the facts as an insult, perhaps I misread your tone- My pet peeve in face-to-face conversation is condescesion, as if someone has to 'explain' things to me- I get it, and I'm studied, or I wouldnt be talking-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you think it matters? Do you really think the tragedy my family would feel with my loss is any different then the tragedy any other family would feel at their loss? And if you multiply that by a million, how can it possibly matter? One does not equal a million.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You also asked me this, is one man worth a million? I ask you- How much do you think you are worth to your mother? To your wife, or children if you have them?- Do you think they could see the big picture if it happened to you?
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world. This is why I’ve said over and over that the US does not exist in a vacuum. We do not do what we do, because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse.
The perfect example of course is, “what if we had gone into Nazi Germany sooner?” How many millions would have been saved? And of course the 9/ll commission determined that the problem with American international policy, where it applied to terrorism, was a lack of action.
I could have told them that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.
Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double post.
And I say unto you brethren, that below thou shalt find the true post. Seek and ye shall find, but seek below this post, lest ye not find. Because if ye seek above this post, thou shalt not find, and if ye seek in this post, ye shall not find. Only if ye seek below this post wilt thou find. And find ye shall if ye seek not here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, I’m not talking about combat deaths. I’m talking about people killed by their government. Dude, you’re not even on the right page, but it’s kind of a dumb thing to say that we’ve only lost 5 soldiers in wars since Vietnam. We've lost many more then that. And it’s an even dumber thing to say that we killed those people because they were dark skinned.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What was it Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is statistic.”
“As long as I’m not effected, let millions die.” This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did. This is sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the realities of the world.
Finn, we have killed thousands and millions of people in every conflict we've engaged in since Viet Nam, but because until this one we've only lost like five of our own soldiers and half of them was 'cause they tripped and fell trying to get into a helecopter or something, those millions have only been a statistic. Seems to me that as long as the millions who die are dark skinned foreigners America is more than happy to burry its collective head in the sand and ignore the realities of the world. "As long as [American lives are] not affected, let millions die."
It’s completely inconsistent, for one thing. If you’re intent is to scream racism, how do you explain Yugoslavia? All the people we killed there were white. There were, in fact, real reasons for those wars or conflicts. But I guess if anti-American rhetoric is your goal, you’re not really concerned with the real reasons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, hey, the whole last couple of weeks in world events has got me pretty wildly upset. Sometimes the bitter ironies of our world are overwhelming. One sad consequence of that is my last post on this thread inwhich my substantive "rhetoric" was overwhelmed by bitterness and irony. Irony is a dangerously unstable thing online, I know (I know, I know). So I'm not surprised if my point got a little garbled.
So what was I on about? First of all, seriously, I really didn't intend my rhetoric to be "anti-american." America is still the best place to be as far as I'm concerned. We do have one of the freest presses on the planet even if they act like america's little cheerleading squad these days. People come here and their dreams come true a lot of the time in ways they never could have realized in other parts of the world. And, of course, we make the best TV shows 
.
Rather, my rhetoric would more properly be termed "anti-war." I have nothing good to say about it. War is bad (horrifically, cataclysmically, psychopathologically bad), even when Americans participate in it. I'm one of these unless-they're-on-your-doorstep-threatening-your-kids-don't-do-it type o' guys (sorry, irony again. What I mean is that war is only justified when the threat is absolutely, manifestly immediate and direct. "Pre-emptive" war is just evil and wrong and going to war in Iraq--the way we went to war in Iraq--is one of the five wrongest things this country has ever done). And anyway, since we are the pre-eminant military force on the planet, in my view, we have been very, very bad in our time. Even the best country on Earth has room to grow.
The "only lost 5 guys" remark was a bitter summation of what I believe to be how the great mass of americans have seen our casualties in recent wars. The mainstream media have consistantly downplayed the numbers of combat deaths and yet any time one of our soldiers has been killed in a non-combat related accident it's on the front page. The not so subtle measage being, "American's only die by accident." When in reality as I see it, war is a place, primarily, where people are sent to die.
And please blame the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for the racism remarks . We send an awful lot of poor and minority americans to foreign lands so they can kill and be killed by, mainly, people of color. And communists.
Finn, thanks for replying. The internet is littered with threads which end with one of my posts.
Hey, anyway, you ever seen this show--it was only on for like half a season--anyway, it's really cool and it just came out on dvd...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I get out of Finn's proposals is that as long as it's America doing the killing, it's OK, 'cause it is killing blessed with **righteousness**. But at the same time it's painted under the rubric 'the realities' of this world. So, Finn, is US action righteous and pure or compromised and sullied?
On a more practical note, the US has been careless about the friends it picks.
Saddam Hussein was a friend since he was bleeding Iran; the Taliban was a friend b/c it was bleeding Russia ... or, as what pointed out to me after a long list of murderous dictators the US installed/supported - "Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just so you all know where I'm coming from:
IMHO, the last thing the US wants is democracy around the world. Democratic countries might just - well, nationalize resources for the betterment of the people. Demand fair trade agreements. Deal with other countries we're in competition with. Join together for better economic leverage.
On the other hand, dictatorships provide guaranteed economic forms. The dictator has a vested interest in maintaining the system. And since dictators need guns and military support, the US, which supplies said capability, retains a level of control over the dictator.
It's the only thing that makes sense out of all the dictators the US called/calls 'friend'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, Rue, I've come to very similarly sad conclusions about "the realities" of our American system. What we export far more successfully than democracy is capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism is not an ethical social system. It is not an unethical social system. It is not even a social system. (Maybe it's an anti-social system?) It is merely a very successful mechanism for perpetuating itself because it makes the people that run the system very, very rich and because it fosters the illusion--the dream--that those at the bottom can rise to the top. The system is chaotic enough for such a "rags to riches" story to happen every now and then. This is how capitalism gets associated with democracy, not because it is actually populist but because it creates populist dreams.
Our government's long standing opposition to communism is driven far more by capitalism than democracy. Communism is far more a capitalist nightmare than a democratic one. The communistic state is definatively a closed system, one less market for capitalism to exploit, and capitalism can't stand that. Far better for capitalism to trade with a dictator than to get nothing from the communists.
When I look at Firefly, I see what I would call "End Game Capitalism." What I'm seeing more and more is that capitalism requires two things: constantly expanding markets and desperate (therefore cheap) foreign labor. Left unchecked such a system advances like a terminal disease until all markets have been exploited out of existance. So the Earth got used up and they terraformed a whole galaxy of earths with a limitless supply of poor desperate workers.
Of course, one way to slow the process of utter depletion of the earth is to engage in wars. In a war you destroy existing infrastructures which starts the cycle over with poor desperate people and a lot of rebuilding which will make the capitalists rich. It's just the grimmest picture I can think of.
So, it seems that globally, socialism just doesn't fire the imagination of enough people for it to catch on and stick. Capitalism is extraordinarily seductive and very profitable for a lot of people. So how do we curb the natural tendancies of capitalism, reign it in, so that more people can experience its benefits and the planet doesn't get used up? Is it even possible? Is it possible to impose ethics on a system that is so seductive, profitable and amoral?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So because the US cannot be said to be perfect any comment no matter how out of context that vilifies the US must be taken as true? What you are trying to do is force the argument into proving that the US is “righteous,” which is hard to do. And then you’re going to say that because someone can’t prove that, it means the US is the bad guy.
Originally posted by rue:
What I get out of Finn's proposals is that as long as it's America doing the killing, it's OK, 'cause it is killing blessed with **righteousness**. But at the same time it's painted under the rubric 'the realities' of this world. So, Finn, is US action righteous and pure or compromised and sullied?
Well let’s try turning this argument around and see just how valid it is. How righteous are you? Have you never made a mistake? Have you never trusted someone you shouldn’t have? Have you never done a single thing in your entire life out of greed or fear or less then righteous reasons? Are you prefect, rue? Are you righteous? And if not, I guess that means that all you’re good intentions, all the good things you’ve tried to do, and all the reasons for why you did what you did are meaningless, because you can’t prove you’re perfect.
Just because the US may not be perfect does not mean the US assassinated someone, when what they really did is support a rebellion against someone, or that only 5 Americans died in wars following Vietnam, or that unfounded accusations of racism are true or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes, or anti-capitalist rhetoric is true.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here 'ya go Finn. This covers through "C" in the western hemisphere. Dominica through Venezuela are up next. After that it's on to Africa, then Asia.
I sure hope you don't believe this all happened by accident as the US was just tryin' to do the right thing.
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/88.htm
In 1823, President James Monroe enunciated the first US policy on Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine warned European nations against interfering in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, Roosevelt's Corollary said the US would act as a "policeman", intervening militarily when US interests were at risk.
Argentina
http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,11439,1101122,00.html
"Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents."
Bolivia
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
"in 1970 ... President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by U.S. interests and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by U.S. trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin placed the U.S. Air Force radio at their disposal."
Brazil
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1375.shtml
"WASHINGTON (IPS/GIN) - A newly declassified audiotape and documents released Mar. 31, 40 years after the 1964 coup that installed military rule in Brazil, show that then-President Lyndon Johnson was directly involved in the decision to back the uprising. Also, the CIA had a heavy presence in Brazil at the time, and was implementing a number of covert operations designed to bolster the opposition to left-leaning Brazilian President Joao Goulart."
Chile
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
"September 11, 1998 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country ... because of CIA covert intervention in Chile, and the repressive character of General Pinochet's rule, the coup became the most notorious military takeover in the annals of Latin American history."
Columbia
http://www.progressive.org/comm999.htm
"You are unwittingly complicitous in some of the worst mass murders in the hemisphere today," says Carlos Salinas, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean. "If you liked El Salvador, you're going to love Colombia. It's the same death squads, the same military aid, and the same whitewash from Washington."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what is your point now? That the US may have had an interest in coups against dictatorial regimes? That seems a little superfluous, doesn’t it? Since no one is denying that. I think you mihgt be a little bit naive, rue. The world is not Sesame Street. Dictators and oppressive regimes really do exist and coups really do happen in them. In fact, in most of the countries you mentioned coups happen like most people change underwear. And the US has an interest in many of these countries which they do not want to see fall apart because some crazy dictator wants to be the next to push into power.
Originally posted by rue:
Here 'ya go Finn. This covers through "C" in the western hemisphere. Dominica through Venezuela are up next. After that it's on to Africa, then Asia.
I sure hope you don't believe this all happened by accident as the US was just tryin' to do the right thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.
Yes, those pesky Soviets... killing off their entire population in death camps, 'tis truly horrible. Maybe, Finn, you should get your facts straight. Russia today has around 120 million citizens, I don't know the exact population the Soviet Union had, but trust me, they did NOT kill 100 million people.
Yes Stalin was a brutal son of a bitch, yes he deserves to rot in hell. But maybe you should read up on what happened after his death. Maybe you should also read about Soviet foreign policy in the post-Stalin years and you might find that it was a lot less expansionist than you think. Which is not to say that they played nice, surely they didn't, but just as they were "exporting communism" the US was "exporting capitalism". The US was definetely NOT however "exporting democracy", there have been examples of this named further up in the thread.
If you think the Soviet Union was more ruthless in the Cold War, may I suggest you look up the day it started: a simple plot to minimize Soviet power in China post WWII, this is well documented. The date was August 6th 1945.
Coward
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are right. My apologies. I got a little carried away with the numbers. Let me rephrase that comment to be more accurate. (The population of the Soviet Union was 272,000,000 in 1985 and 208,827,000 in 1959.)
The Soviets along only killed some 60 million people, of which Stalin was responsible for about 40 million. The total world wide killed by communist regimes in all its varied forms is over 100 million, which is almost 3 times the number of combat deaths in all the wars since 1900. That doesn’t include the famines, which occur in unprecedented levels in communist nations, even in temperate fertile regions.
So I thank you for bringing that mistake to my attention, but it makes little difference to my argument. Communism was the greatest threat to modern civilization the world has ever seen, and preventing its spread was or should have been the foremost important principal of US foreign policy throughout much of last century.
As far as what the US was “exporting,” I would like someone to explain to me, how one, strictly speaking, “exports democracy” in the modern world? Basically we are attempting to do that very thing in Iraq and obviously one can image that if it were the US policy to, strictly speaking, “export democracy” there would be no end to the wars. Now I support the war in Iraq, because it is, strictly speaking, an attempt to export democracy, but it’s messy, as anyone would predict. And somewhat hypocritically, many of the people who criticize the US for not, strictly speaking, exporting democracy are the same people who throw fits when the US tries to, strictly speaking, export democracy. And not surprisingly they are against the war in Iraq, and one of the arguments that I frequently hear from these people is that the Iraqis should be left to choose their own form of government. So what the hell is the point with “exporting democracy” then? Obviously, this whole not exporting democracy criticism is a red herring, and the real intent is to attack the US or the administration.
The US exports democracy indirectly through encouraging a free market (i.e. capitalism). Free markets open up societies, both through the introduction of goods and information; this in turn is expected to promote free political enterprise and democracy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And even when it works, it generally takes time. China is a good example of that. Once a closed Stalinist regime, it has begun to open up because of the encouragement of free markets by the West. A great deal of work has yet to be done, who knows what the final outcome will be, but short of invading China and replacing their current Communist government with a republic, that’s the best we’ve got to work with. One thing is for certain, no matter what the final out come will be, certain people will always claim that the US is either not exporting Democracy, and when we are exporting we will be criticized for “forcing” “our” version of democracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, those "regimes" weren't "dictatorial". They were democratically-elected governments that had an interest in land reform and in not being ripped off on their main exports. (bananas, copper, tin, oil). Apparently the USA just couldn't go for the idea of breaking up huge mostly unused estates (acquired by Spanish conquerors and handed down through military/ land owning oligarchies.)
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
Talk about getting your facts straight! Why do you always stick up for the big guy?? Where would YOU be in the FF 'verse?? Sheesh!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that’s the Communist argument.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, those "regimes" weren't "dictatorial". They were democratically-elected governments that had an interest in land reform and in not being ripped off on their main exports. (bananas, copper, tin, oil). Apparently the USA just couldn't go for the idea of breaking up huge mostly unused estates (acquired by Spanish conquerors and handed down through military/ land owning oligarchies.)
You have a screw loose if you think those countries were democratic. They might be or approaching that today, hopefully they can sustain that momentum, but the last hundred years is not encouraging. South and Central America have, throughout most of the last 100 years, been hotbeds of political turmoil, coups and civil wars. In Bolivia alone there have been almost 200 coups, and the country hasn't even been around for 200 years. That's like having a coup every 10 months. It's pretty difficult to export democracy to a country that unstable, particularly when anything we try to do will be taken out of context and used against us, by people with shortsighted ideological beefs.
Quote:I stick up for the facts as I understand them, not some socialist wet dream. I don’t really know where I would be in FF ‘verse. I know where I am in the reality ‘verse, and I'm happy with that.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Talk about getting your facts straight! Why do you always stick up for the big guy?? Where would YOU be in the FF 'verse?? Sheesh!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Well, that's the communist argument"
Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!
No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.
So, quick, tell me-
What's the difference between an election and a junta?
The difference between democracy and capitalism?
The difference between tyranny and communism?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. It wasn’t a comeback, dude. That’s really the communist argument. "Power to the proletariat," and whatnot.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Well, that's the communist argument"
Oh, now THAT'S a brilliant comeback!
Quote:In some cases, perhaps, maybe the election was democratic, although that’s often suspect considering the degree of corruption, but even assuming that it was, that doesn’t make the country democratic. An election does not a democracy make.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, Finn, it's a factual argument. The presidents of Chile, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia etc etc. were ELECTED by popular vote in multiparty elections. They were replaced by military juntas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
In case you exist under the misconception that somehow US-backed dictators are humane, you should read the book "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number." Or read anything about Idi Amin. If reading is not your preference, see "A Dry White Season", fictional but accurate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
See, that's what I said- You're always sticking up for the big guy!
In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s true.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Elections are not always the hallmark of a democracy, but a dictator is ALWAYS the hallmark of a dictatorship.
Quote:US-backed dictators are OK? No. I don’t think I ever said that. I think that is, perhaps, what you might want to read in my post. I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion, though. US-backed dictators are not necessarily OK, but they are sometimes a necessary evil. I guess in an ideal world the US would never back any dictators. In an ideal world there wouldn’t be any dictators to back. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in this one, and we have to do the best with what we’ve got.
Originally posted by rue:
What you seem to be hewing to is that US-backed dictators are OK. ("Sure they're dictators, but they're OUR dictators!")
Though this does shred your argument that the US exports freedom and democracy.
Quote:So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
Quote:What Brazilian President? Are you talking about JoAo Goulart? He was a communist dude. I’m sorry, but he was. And he wasn’t elected president either. He was vice-president, and the elected president resigned. That’s not really a coup. I guess in a part of world where coups are often the norm, that’s pretty democratic. I’m sorry to bash your hopes and dreams here, but South America has not been a bastion of democracy.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In any case, if you ahd bothered to follow up any of the links, you would have found out that the ELECTED PRESIDENTS were not even close to being communist. For example, the Brazilian President's downfall (as far as the power structure is concerned) was his desire to BUY unused land from the oligarchs and distribute it to the landless peasants. I suppose that's too much for you, too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:
As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.
Dominican Republic
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
"1930 Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic
1963 CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic
1965 A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this 'Communist rebellion,' with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua."
Ecuador
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/ecuador.htm
"In September 1960, a new government headed by José María Velasco Ibarra came to power. Velasco had won a decisive electoral victory, running on a vaguely liberal, populist, something-for- everyone platform. He was no Fidel Castro, he was not even a socialist, but he earned the wrath of the US State Department and the CIA by his unyielding opposition to the two stated priorities of American policy in Ecuador: breaking relations with Cuba, and clamping down hard on activists of the Communist Party and those to their left. ... *the article goes on to describe at length directly-involved CIA covert operations* ... in November 1961, the military acted."
El Salvador
The list of recent US involvements in El Salvador is lengthy, so here are references to historical articles:
http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page46.html
discussion of "death squads" (UN Truth Commission on Salvadoran Death Squads)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1891145.stm
"To defeat the rebels, (against a military dictatorship) the US equipped and trained an army which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of old people women and children."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All righty then. I actually do have access to the as of now still classified **US government** documentation as well as the currently declassified **US government** documentation. So you’re probably not telling me anything I haven’t already seen. From the looks of it, much of it has been taken out of context or just wrong. Although it is true that the US has been drawn into the currupt and often violent politics of South America on many occassions. I’m not really sure what you point is, but if posting this floats your boat then that’s okay with me.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, more Western Hemispehre information to follow:
As in my previous post, I'm including only the most recent US interventions. The listings would be far longer if I were to go back to the days of 'Banana Republics'. Recently released **US government** documents sketch US direct involvement up to about the 70's, but most government documents from that period are still classified. More recent **US government** documentation does not exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
These are your words, not mine.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to add my two cents.
Anyone claiming Brasil is a democracy is full of it. Having lived through at least 6 Brasilian presidents & elections including an election on governmental reform, I can tell you Brasil is only a democracy on paper and in pipe dreams. Lula might be able to make the country a democracy but it would take a miracle.
I would even argue that America is not a democracy as you have an either/or government. The choices we have for President is MULTI-MILLIONAIRE FROM []Texas []Mass. Pick one.
As for the rest of it, I leave you with my signature:
PS. I am now stuck singing Irish songs thanks to reading this thread
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So? I think you're seeing what you want to see, and whatever that is, taking things out of context isn’t making it any clearer.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
These are your words, not mine.
Let me tell you a story, rue. Do you know who Robert Baer is? He is one of those CIA operatives that you like to fanaticizes is out breaking fingers and vilely forcing capitalism down the throats poor happy communists. He was sent to Iraq to do what other operatives had been called upon to do in other places. To represent the US in a nation’s struggle for freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it. He worked in Iraq for several years. I don’t know how much of it is declassified so I’m going to keep his actions there a secret, but needless to say, his job was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He gathered intelligence. Boots on the ground, you know. That’s one of those thing that everyone says our intelligence departments are lacking. He helped organized the efforts of some Iraqi Generals who wanted to remove Saddam Hussein and stop the Stalinist madness that was destroying Iraq. Sounds like a good plan? Well he got as far as getting everyone together, and all he needed was the go-ahead form Washington.
Instead Clinton recalled Agent Baer and investigated him for the alleged crime of attempting to assassinate Saddam Hussein. This is the worst example of Political Correctness gone crazy that I’ve ever seen. Baer was accused of a crime for doing what his country had told him to do, remove an evil dictator at the behest of Iraqi oppression. Now this would not guarantee that Iraq would become democratic, but it certainly wasn’t going to under Hussein. So it was at least a step in the right direction. If Hussein had been removed, we might have avoided a war. Anyone with half a brain knew that if Saddam stayed in power a war between the US and Iraq was inevitable. Iraq was violating cease fire agreements, violating UN resolution, avoiding weapons inspectors, threatening the US and all the while with the ability to create or currently hold substantial stockpiles of WMDs. There’s no way we could have avoided a war, without removing Saddam Hussein. We had one solutions of removing Hussein that would have avoided the horrors of war.
You seem to want to pretend, somewhat naively, that we live in a simple world. So here’s a question for you: You want to promote democracy. So how would you promote democracy in Iraq? Leaving Hussein in power is not going to promote democracy. So that solution is out right away. Your other solutions are to remove him covertly, as Agent Baer attempted to do, or overtly as was done with this war. Now granted the war has a much better chance of actually installing a democratic regime because it’s much more hands on. But removing Saddam covertly might have at least alleviated some of the horrors, and possibly jumpstarted a move towards democratization, without the need for a full-scale war.
What do you do? Either way, you’re going to be damned. If you choose to remove him by war, you’re going to have to loose Americans as well as cause all kind of political problems in the UN, which was making lots of money of Saddam. But you have a fair chance of putting a real democracy in place. Or you remove him covertly, and there is a civil war, several thousand people die, at best a quasi-democratic regime is put in place. Suspicion of US involvement leads to conspiracy theories. The regime is a little less brutal then the last, so the assumption, accompanying the conspiracy theories is that it is “pro-American” puppet in the US's "impire" when in reality it very like is not. What would you do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I'm not trying to be tedious here, but I'd like to recap your arguments if I may.
First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:
Really? That's like saying I back IBM. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them.
You dropped the argument in favor of this:
Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire.
The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible.
The US **backed** (that slippery word) parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.
(Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:
Iran ( http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/ "Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.
Iraq http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17468
It was Rumsfeld and Shultz who told Hussein and his emissaries that U.S. statements generally condemning the use of chemical weapons would not interfere with relations between secular Iraq and the Reagan administration, which took Iraq off the terrorist-nations list and embraced Hussein as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran.)
And you justify the US because
How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision ... That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags
And also
Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:
We do not do what we do, because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.
Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):
So because the US cannot be said to be perfect any comment no matter how out of context that vilifies the US must be taken as true? What you are trying to do is force the argument into proving that the US is “righteous,” which is hard to do. (I didn't introduce the concept, I did put a single word to it.)
Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:
or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes
Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.
Anyway, aside from racking up the references, I have a life to live.
Have a good remaining weekend, all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it. In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs. Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness. If you want a good example, check out teh Free Software movement. ("Free as in freedom, not beer.") We need humaniform parasites like a submarine needs a screen door.
So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".
Your heart's in the right place Finn, but that "whatever" is what's getting you into trouble. Thats' terribly sloppy thinking. When I asked you what was the DIFFERENCE between an elected government and a junta, democracy and capitalism, tyranny and communsim, you declined to answer. I spotted this weaknesst in your thinking right away. In your mind you string this all together... freedom/capitalism/democracy/ethics/whatever and godless/tyrannical/communusm/whatever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I never said that. Once again you’re seeing what you want to see. I said the US did not assassinate the leader of the particular nation in question, but rather may have supported the coup in which the assassination took place, which is something, as I pointed out, the US may do. I don’t know where you got the idea that it was dropped.
Originally posted by rue:
First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:
Quote:Previously posted by me:
Originally posted by rue:
Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]
Quote:In some cases, that is exactly right.
Originally posted by rue:
Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:
Quote:Previously posted be me:
Originally posted by rue:
At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]
Quote:No I didn’t abandon anything, what I did was prevent you from using the ridiculous argument that if something isn’t perfect it must ipso facto be wrong.
Originally posted by rue:
Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):
Quote:Well, as I said if that floats your boat then I’m happy for you. One problem though. All the countries that you have referenced so far currently have democratic or emerging democratic governments, something they didn’t have just a few years ago. It’s hard to say exactly why South/Central America have suddenly become democratic, when only 20 years ago you could set your watch by the coups, and there’s no guarantee it will last, but certainly the US has been involved for a quit some time in this part of world, while these countries were dictators and while they are struggling democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:
or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes
Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.
If indeed your conjecture is true, then it seems unlikely that we would continue to back these now democratic regimes, since according to you we prefer dictators. Furthermore, it would seems even less likely that, given your insistance that we enact coups to maintain dictatorships, that we wouldn’t attempt to remove these democracies as well. Yet instead we continue to support these countries even as they struggle with their new democracies.
Furthermore, US involvement in other parts of the world has helped to bring about democracies including: South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The free markets that we supported in Communist Russia helped to bring about the democratization of Russia and dozens of Soviet occupied nations and similar support is helping to open up China. We supported and continue to support the furthering developments in the struggling democracy in the Balkans and the soon to emerge struggling democracy in Iraq. Not
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.
Originally posted by SignyM:
FinnQuote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".
Quote:But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it.
Quote:Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs.
Quote:Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land? Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
Originally posted by SignyM:
Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness.
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
Quote:I identify with Jayne 110%.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.
No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.
Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!
Quote:
Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.
What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?
Quote:
Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land?
I think that was the whole idea of a militia.
Quote:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
HUH??? Well, maybe farmers will sell their farm products, and fishermen will sell their fish, and truckers will haul it around, refrigerator makers will keep it cold, reseachers will post their research... um, nowhere do I see a spot for generals, oligarchs, and capitalists. So tell me, where do they fit in?
Quote:
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.
Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.
Figures!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.
Quote:From the Marriam-Webster dictionary:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!
Landowner: an owner of land.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=landowner
Sorry, dude, but it implies nothing about those who work the land. And you did say that it was bad to support landowners, literally, not landowners who work the land. You said landowners.
Quote:Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrape, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?
Originally posted by SignyM:
What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?
Quote:Someone’s going to have to run the militia. You can’t have a leaderless military.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that was the whole idea of a militia.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
HUH??? Well, maybe farmers will sell their farm products, and fishermen will sell their fish, and truckers will haul it around, refrigerator makers will keep it cold, reseachers will post their research... um, nowhere do I see a spot for generals, oligarchs, and capitalists. So tell me, where do they fit in?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry? Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues? This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?
Quote:Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.
Originally posted by SignyM:
MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.
Quote:Jayne is cool.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.
Figures!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm... let's see... working my way backwards...
Quote:Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Jane is cool
You said
Quote:Actually, no, it's YOUR story. I never said "those in charge" you did:
Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.
Quote:That's part of that "generals, oligarchs, poor defenseless international businesses and WHATEVER" process. "Those in charge" is too open to misunderstanding. Please clarify what YOU mean.
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
You said about generals, oligarchs, and poor defenseless internationl corporations:
Quote:Yes, but what do they DO- besides owning things, that is?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what [you] are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry?
You said
Quote:See, there's that godless/ tyrannical/ backward/ unethical/ oppressive/whatever/ communism" issue again! Aside from the fact that these ideas seem to bump into each other in your brain a lot, do you have an argument as to WHY capitalism is the font of invention and progress and communism is not? Pretend I'm as stupid as a computer and explain it to me step by step. BTW- how do you feel about IP? Continuing the paragraph you said
Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues?
Quote:Sure, why not? heh heh heh. Anyway, you just said communism = subsistence level. How did you get there? (same as above)
This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?
Quote:This is a GREAT idea! When do we start???
Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrap, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?
Actually, I never called those who got land "landowners", you did
Quote:They might own it in cooperative, for example, or obtain long-term leases based on their ability to work the land. I can think of a LOT of structures that aren't land ownership. Ownership, BTW, is a societal concept with all kinds of imposed limitations. For example, you can't own air. You can own a gun, but you can't do just anything you want with it. In other words, it's an artifical concept, not a "natural fact".
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
If you would respond to what I'm saying instead of what you THINK I'm saying, we'd get a lot farther. BTW, you have not yet gotten to what I think of as the ESSENTIAL function of capitalism.
TTUL
Edited 05/25/04 for clarification.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Jane is cool
Quote:Yes, that’s true. You referred to them as the “big guys.” You said that the “big guys” are landowners, generals and corporations. That sounds to me like those in charge, perhaps not. In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, no. I never said "those in charge", you did.
Quote:I guess that’s just it. Poor people with simple jobs don’t do much, do they? They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control. Communism = pure totalitarianism.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:Yes, but what do they DO- besides owning thgins, that is?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry?
Quote:Capitalism encourages free market, free enterprise, free thinking. Communism encourages a subsistence level of poverty and easily controlled masses.
Originally posted by SignyM:
See, there's that "godless/tyrannical/backward/unethical/oppressive/
whatever/communism" issue again! Aside from the fact that these ideas seem to bump into each oyher in your brain a lot, do you have an argument as to why capitalism is the font of invention and progress and communism is not? BTW- how do you feel about IP?
IP?
Quote:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sure, why not? heh heh heh
Quote:No actually you did, remember this:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I never called those who got land "landowners", you didQuote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
See, that's what I said- You're always sticking up for the big guy! [Emphasis Added.]
According to YOU, generals, landownwers(sic) and “poor defenseless international corporations,” are the “big guy.”
This is all your story. I’m just trying to keep up.
Quote:That’s true. In any free society, there must be limitations to what one can do in order to maximize everyone’s freedom. But in the hypothetical society you seem to be describing, the only one allowed to own land is the government; everyone else must be poor farmers, fisherman etc. No on is allowed to gain any degree of independence from the government. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.
Originally posted by SignyM:
They might own it in cooperative, for example, or obtain long-term leases based on their ability to work the land. I can think of a LOT of structures that aren't land ownership. Ownership, BTW, is an artificial societal concept with all kinds of inherent limitations. (For example, you can't own air. You can own a gun, but you can't do just anything you want with it.)
Quote:I don’t think you realize what you are saying.
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you would respond to what I'm saying instead of what you THINK I'm saying, we'd get a lot farther.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show.
Quote:Not those "in charge". In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
That sounds to me like those in charge, perhaps not.
Not necessarily.
You said
Quote:But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Poor people with simple jobs don’t do much, do they?
Quote:They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Quote:This is an assertion. I'll have to get back to this later.
Capitalism encourages free market, free enterprise, free thinking. Communism encourages a subsistence level of poverty and easily controlled masses.
"IP?"
Intellectual property.
Quote:You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Quote:Gotta get to work. I'll edit this later. TTUL
That’s true. In any free society, there must be limitations to what one can do in order to maximize everyone’s freedom. But in the hypothetical society you seem to be describing, the only one allowed to own land is the government; everyone else must be poor farmers, fisherman etc. No on is allowed to gain any degree of independence from the government. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Quote:Who else would be in charge?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not necessarily.
Quote:You said it yourself. “what do they DO- besides owning thgins(sic)”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Quote:Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Quote:Really? How?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Quote:Yes, you did. Remember this:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Quote:In other words the land they owned.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it.[Emphasis Added.]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
------------------------------------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
-----------------------------------------
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.
--------------------------------------------------
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?
-------------------------
Finn:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Signy: You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Finn: Really? How?
Signy: By supporting/ excusing/ rationalizing every military junta and dictatorship that we put into power with the concommitant death of millions of (usually) peasants and slum-dwellers.
------------------------------
SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Finn: Yes, you did. Remember this:
"Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it."
In other words the land they owned.
Signy: That's not what I meant, so let me clarify that statement- "...on the land they would have had been able to use, had someone not stolen it."
Well, lunch break's over ! TTUL!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
Quote:In other words, the government is the only one in charge.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
Quote:Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.
Quote:No. What I am saying is that if you exclude power from the private sector then the Government is the sole proprietor of authority. Competition, not just between the wealthy, but also between anyone willing to compete.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:Exactly, that’sNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to my original contention:
Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.
The US installs, and/or supports, and/or occasionally deposes dictators. The CIA did the job before it was reined in and forbidden to assassinate, foment, advise, supply etc. And before the CIA, the army, navy and marines were pressed into service to install, support and topple foreign governments. In some cases it dates back to the early 1900's - before the Russian Revolution, before the Cold War, and before anti-Communism became a convenient rhetorical bludgeon.
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. And you'll conveniently gloss over that fact that in Central and South America US-supported death squads killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, coincidentally supporting regimes of various kinds. And that, like Korea, South American democracy emerged after US influence diminished. Now maybe you'll paint a happy picture of how pleasant Russia is, and keep silent about life expectancy in the new Capitalist Paradise.
I know to much for that.
I provide references which are of necessity incomplete. I'm not about to publish a book here. But anyone with an interest can use my references to HISTORICAL events to learn more. And Google will list many, many resources which are balanced in the aggregate.
On the other hand, while I see a lot of rhetoric and what looks like disinformation, I see nothing in the way of substantiation for opposing claims. It appears that my position prevails.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RE: Jayne
The more or less entire xchng goes-
Signy: Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Finn: That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show
SignyM: You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn: He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
Finn: Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.
Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?
---------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
Finn: In other words, the government is the only one in charge.
Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?
-------------------
Signy: But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscommunication here- I can't figure out your answer.
Finn: Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?
Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"
-----------------
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly as it was said.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?
Quote:No, and they shouldn't be in charge of whether or not I buy land or whether or not I run a corporation.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?
Quote:This is your story. You tell me.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"
Quote:More or less.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: So what you're saying is that competition keeps things in check.
Quote:That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Where's the exaggeration? Hmmm.. let's see. A civil war that pits an elected president and the majority of a population on one side, and an army and the CIA on the other side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."
That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.
Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All of which the US played or plays a crucial role in the emergence of democracy.
Originally posted by rue:
Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.
Quote:I don’t agree, because I think the facts clearly state otherwise.
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Democratic institution rating (10 most democratic, -10 most autocratic.) [3]
Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade deficits. [1]
China. . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: -7.0
Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Canada. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Germany. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 6.0
Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Venezuela. . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
South Korea. . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 8.0
Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 4.0
Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade Surplus[2]
Netherlands. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Singapore. . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 4.0(Malaysia) *
Hong Kong. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -7.0, 10(China, UK)**
Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -6.0
United Arab Emirates. . Democratic institution rating: -8.0
Panama. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Netherlands Antilles. . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0 (Netherlands)***
*No independent rating was found for Singapore. Singapore is an independent City-State on the southern tip of Malaysia. Its form of government is described as a parliamentary republic.
** No independent rating was found for Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a city-state that for most of last century was a British territory, but now has been handed over to China as a special administrative region of China. Its form of government is described as a limited democracy.
*** Netherlands Antilles is a group of Caribbean Islands, most of which are territories of the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a Liberal Democracy, described as a Constitutional Monarchy. Aruba is the only independent nation in the Netherlands Antilles. Aruba’s form of government is described as a parliamentary democracy.
[1] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html
[2] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/surplus.html
[3] Polity IV Project, University of Maryland, at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/index.htm#polity via ciesin.org
Quote:Waned? Yes, US influence is really down the tubes, isn’t it? No actually it occurred because of something called the Korean War, in which the US fought off the Stalinist dictatorial regime that now presides over North Korea, and helped to produce the now Democratic South Korea. There is no more blatant and obvious example of US support for Democracy.
Originally posted by rue:
Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. .
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you'll conveniently glosNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."
That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.
Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.
It is supported. It is supported by the fact that the comment it is in response to, fails to produce any evidence for an outrageous claim. The burden is not on my to find support for your point of view. I’m sorry, but that is something that you’ll have to come up with on your own.
I hate to break it to you, rue, but making a list of, largely, democratic nations as evidence that the US prefers dictators is hardly what one might call “bona fide facts.”
And I think I’ve responded to every point you’ve made so far. It’s hardly fair to say I’ve run from any of your comments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double Post.
This never happened.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, unfortunately I've been so busy I don't have time to give this thread more than a pat and a promise. So I'm going to jump in with just a couple of quick comments and get back to you in more detail later. You've been a good sport about discussing things, and I appreciate the time you've taken to respond.
First of all, did you notice the negative signs next to China, UAE and Hong Kong in your list?
More substantively, a current list does not reveal what the USA did in the past. Specifically, the United States undeniably supported Pinochet, Somoza, Shah Reza Palavi (sp?), Mugabe, Suharto, Marcos, Hussein etc etc. in various ways including sending in troops and/or arms, assassinating elected leaders, supplying logistical information and intelligence, paying provocateurs, planting false news items, training local troops in "interrogation" and population "control" techniques and so forth. Let me know which one of these you'd like references on- I don't have time to supply a whole list of links if you're not interested and won't read them.
I do find it interesting that the ONE COUNTRY in South and Central America that we DIDN'T get involved in is the ONE COUNTRY that isn't all f*cked up. (Guess which one and you get a prize!)
TTUL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course I noticed. I typed it in, Einstein. So what? Did you notice the positives next to Japan, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Ireland, Venezuela, Italy, South Korea, Nigeria, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Panama? What’s your point?
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, did you notice the negative signs next to China, UAE and Hong Kong in your list?
Quote:Most of this is unsubstantiated, but no one has argued that the US doesn’t support dictators. It is the assumption put forth by rue and seemingly supported by you, that the US prefers dictatorships to democracies that is full of crap.
Originally posted by SignyM:
More substantively, a current list does not reveal what the USA did in the past. Specifically, the United States undeniably supported Pinochet, Somoza, Shah Reza Palavi (sp?), Mugabe, Suharto, Marcos, Hussein etc etc. in various ways including sending in troops and/or arms, assassinating elected leaders, supplying logistical information and intelligence, paying provocateurs, planting false news items, training local troops in "interrogation" and population "control" techniques and so forth. Let me know which one of these you'd like references on- I don't have time to supply a whole list of links if you're not interested and won't read them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, it's substantiated by documents that are currently being declassified, as well as Presidential papers that are being released. That's why I want to know which ones you want substantiated, because I could provide a whole list of links to declassified papers and so forth, but if you're not interested or you don't thinks that's substantive enough then I won't bother.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
S'anyways, as I was saying....
Assuming that I can substantiate everything that I've said (and will on request) in the list of leaders that we supported, the list of dictators is very long. In the list of leaders that we opposed, the list of demcoratically-elected leaders is alarmingly high. Our dividing line doesn't seem to be whether the rulers were elected and enjoyed popular support or not, but whether they were pro-capitalist or pro-socialist. I didn't think of it, but Rue's explanation makes too much sense to ignore.
I know that this isn't just a historical problem either. Despite the fact that we're trying to bring democracy to Iraq (or whatever) we are quietly funneling lots and lots of $$ into Uzbekistan, which as I have said before, has all the charm of Stalinist Russia. UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies either.
And I'm reasonably certain that we're behind the instability in Venezuela (President Chavez). I saw a news clip that shocked even me, cynical as I am. I don't know if you recall, but about a 2 years ago, there were a series of anti-Chavez demonstrations that ended in the deaths of a dozen demonstrators. When I heard that, I assumed that police or military units guarding the main government building panicked and shot into an unruly crowd, and it looked like the demonstrations were going to get violent.
Chavez insisted that his units had NOT fired at the demonstrators (which you would expect him to say anyway, true or not). But one of the deaths was actually captured on video. The scene was a small crowd of demonstrators about 200 ft from the cameraman standing nearby a building. And I mean that- standing. Not shouting, not marching, or waving placards- just kind of hanging around. In the foreground was a woman in a bright yellow T-shirt whose back was to the camera. Because of her short hair and stocky build I assume she was middle-aged, and SHE was just standing around looking at the demonstrators, no closer to any of them than about 150 ft. BANG! She was shot in the back of the head. I wasn't surprised at the coldness of it all, but at the obviousness.
Now, my dad was trained by the British as a provocateur/ saboteur, and I'm not going to tell you some of the things he told me, lest I get in trouble in these paranoid times. But this has all of the hallmarks of the work of a provocateur. BTW, our biggest source of imported oil is from Venezuela, NOT Saudi Arabia.
Edited to add a couple of comments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Finn has misunderstood Signy's argument pretty much from the get-go because he chooses to see it as an ideological argument (capitalism vs. communism) while Signy's is really a social justice argument (haves vs. have nots) which is informed by Signy's own sense of morality.
For me, the morality issue is at the heart of why these arguments get so heated and insoluble.
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.
Now, the argument about Jayne being the most honest of the crew may at first seem like a side note, but I think it's at the heart of the Tough Noogies point of view. The Tough Noogies argument stems, I believe, from a fundamental belief that the forces of corruption and evil are ultimately more powerful than the forces of justice, both on the level of the individual and that of society. Superior force will always win out. That's why the good guys have to play dirty. Tough Noogies may deny it to your face but he knows perfectly well that the fate of the human species will be decided by force, so "we" have to exert more force than "them" if we want to survive.
But if that were so, Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi, f'rinstance, would never have been famous or effective and Jesus Christ would not be the most famous person in the world next to the Beatles. Compassion is discounted by Tough Noogies, because Tough Noogies simply cannot understand a power greater than force.
"A power greater than force? What the is that supposed to mean? That's like saying a power greater than power, or a force greater than force! How stupid is that?"
Arguing for Compassion is a lot like trying to prove the existence of God or Love. Unless you've experienced it, you really can't see it.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello???
Finn......????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade deficits. [1]
China Democratic institution rating: -7.0
Japan Democratic institution rating: 10.0
etc ...
I'm not sure what these lists are supposed to prove. That we CURRENTLY trade[-i] with democracies? Now, isn't that just a working-out by private business interests of their bottom line?
As Signym points out, what does this have to do with our government making a point of covert/overt meddling in foreign countries?
Just to open up a new topic, Finn seems to think that China's transition to capitalism is a good thing.
After it was pointed out to me, and I did a little research on my own, I've concluded: China's economy is every bit as large as the US. But most of it is internal. Once they move futher onto the international economy, they will surpass and supplant the US. For anyone who liked being top dog, say goodbye to your comfort zone.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK - I guess what the Tough Noogie people don't factor-in is that human advancement - speech, bowls and jugs, fire, tools, writing etc. didn't come from force.
Odd thoughts on the general topic - people who consider themselves religious, who are even anti-evolutionist, are steeped in 'social Darwinism'. The US needs that underlying myth of the inevitable mill of ruthless competition, so as to support the other myths on which our society is based.
Not that social Darwinism has anything to do with real evolution. "Sterility negates virility" - the meanest most competitive SOB who can't procreate is out of the picture. Even more, a mean FERTILE male specimen whose OFFSPRING don't survive is out of the picture, evolutionarily-speaking.
If ruthless competition and fertility were the soul of human survival, the poor women and children (in competition with the larger more mobile males) would simply be marginalized out of existance. And there goes the species.
So, there is a biological basis for morality, cooperation etc.
I would like to acknowledge that I was the recipient of most of these insights. They did not originate with me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, Rue. I think it's just fascinatin' the way science is influenced by social institutions. Darwin came up with "survival of the fittest" and it caught on because the 19th Century was the Golden Age of Unenlightened Capitalism. It gave scientific/cosmological justification for robberbarony.
Or back in the '50's Desmond Morris wrote the "Naked Ape" which is an hilarious evolutionary justification for old-school machismo.
There are a million other examples, but I got work to do.
Thanks for writing.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, of course, it would have to be substantiated by declassified documents, wouldn’t it. Here’s the problem, I give you a list of countries that represent many of the US’s largest trading partners cross referenced with their democratic institution rating (not an easy thing to come up with), and practically every one of them is a democracy. Yet, the only thing you see are the few that aren’t? Why is that? You purposefully ignore 75% of the information because it does not suit what you want to be true. Now you tell me that you can substantiate outrageous claims with “declassified” documents. My guess is that you believe it is substantiated because you’ve selected the information that you will use to support it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, it's substantiated by documents that are currently being declassified, as well as Presidential papers that are being released. That's why I want to know which ones you want substantiated, because I could provide a whole list of links to declassified papers and so forth, but if you're not interested or you don't thinks that's substantive enough then I won't bother.
Quote:Interesting.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.
Would a nice “I have a dream” speech have taken care of Hitler? Probably not, yes?
And we all remember those compassionate liberals who rallied against war in Iraq with slogans like “Saddam only kills his own people.”
Quote:You’re not sure what these lists are supposed to prove, huh? That’s conveniently placed ignorance! Let me remind you of your “point:”
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not sure what these lists are supposed to prove. That we CURRENTLY trade with democracies? Now, isn't that just a working-out by private business interests of their bottom line?
Quote:I supposed by this you mean that the US is on the side of 3 “dictators it prefers for business reasons” out of 20 and the rest are democracies? Because that’s what the evidence would seem to suggest, and it would seem not to support your supposition that the US prefers dictatorships to democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Quote:I don’t think the Chinese economy is really as big as the US’s, but it is very large, supplied by an enormous work force. Sadly, it still suffers from tremendous inefficiencies as a result of its communist nature. But you are right, if China ever does become a democracy, it will very likely become a huge player on the global market. I’m not sure it will supplant the US, but it may economically surpass it. In fact, Chinese may someday replace English as the Langua Franca of the Western World. And it will have the US to thank, at least in part.
Originally posted by rue:
After it was pointed out to me, and I did a little research on my own, I've concluded: China's economy is every bit as large as the US. But most of it is internal. Once they move futher onto the international economy, they will surpass and supplant the US. For anyone who liked being top dog, say goodbye to your comfort zone.
Quote:Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hello???
Finn......????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Are you having problems with disjunctives today?
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)
Now to address your list:
....
China -7.0, Japan 10.0, Canada 10.0, Germany 10.0, Mexico 6.0, Ireland 10.0, Venezuela 7.0, Italy 10.0, South Korea 8.0, Nigeria 4.0
....
Netherlands 10.0, Singapore 4.0, Hong Kong -7.0, 10, Australia 10.0, Belgium 10.0, Greece 10.0, Egypt -6.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, Panama 7.0, Netherlands Antilles 10.0
The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination. (There was a 7-year Greek military rule 1967-74 some attribute to US influence. There is speculation the US tried to influence the 1961 Canadian elections.)
Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).
Venezuela 7.0, Nigeria 4.0, United Arab Emirates -8.0, and Panama 7.0 (average 2.5) have strategic resources.
But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)
I do appreciate your references.
Now for a brief recap my *referenced* examples:
1 example each of US actions: Argentina (coup), Bolivia (coup), Brazil (dirty war), Chile (coup), Columbia (death squads), Dominican Republic (coup), Ecuador (covert ops), and El Salvador (death squads).
But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.
And this is just the Western Hemisphere. This is more than "like 3" countries you said I cited. And, if you really need top be hammered with examples, I'll get to the rest of my citations.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy: Hello??? Finn......????
Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.
Welcome Back, and happy Friday!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where the US supports dictators, it is generally because the situations is politically fluid and the US doesn’t feel it is advisable to risk the instability of going against the political will of a certain dictator, or because the solution is between two factions, neither one of which are decided democratic, so the US goes with the one that it feels is the least unstable. With the exception of certain Petroleum producing countries, it generally does not have anything to do with business, because business prefers free markets of democratic nations, not the controlled markets of autocratic and anarchical nations. Even if the US did prefer dictators to democracies for political reasons, of which I have seen little evidence of that in general, it would still be even less likely for it to prefer dictators for business reasons. I’m sorry, but you’re assessment is obviously contrary to the evidence. The US cannot be said to prefer dictators to democracies for business reasons.
Originally posted by rue:
To address the part you missed, the US supports certain dictators because they are business friendly. (Necessary, but not sufficient) Or, to reverse it, wherever the US supports a dictator, you'll find business reasons. It doesn't mean that the US can install its minions everywhere around the world at will. (thank god)
Quote:And what makes you think these countries are outside of US determination? Because the US does not seek to determine them? Perhaps the US doesn’t want to determine them. Most of these countries are liberal Democracies, and the US has no reason to seek to determine their fate, because the US prefers them as they are, democracies. Actually you may be right about China. My guess is that if the US could bring down the Chinese government through covert means, they would. Although that probably has a lot to do with internal US politics as well. But This argument is very, very weak where the other nations are concerned.
Originally posted by rue:
The Chinese, Canadian, German, Irish, Italian, Dutch, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Australian, Belgian, Greek, and Antilles governments (12 of 20, average score 7.5) were and are outside of US determination.
Quote:Perhaps. The US determined Japan, South Korea, and Panama right into being democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
Japan, Mexico, Venezuela, South Korea, Nigeria, Egypt, UAE, and Panama were or are (or both) under some US influence (8 of 20, average score 3.5).
Quote:Their on the list. Their just further down. The only thing we buy from them is oil and they spend a lot of Saudi money on US goods, so we generally don’t hold a very large deficit or surplus with them.
Originally posted by rue:
But where is Saudi Arabia?
We import between 1.5 and 2.3 million barrels of oil per day from there. Venezuela is between 1.2 and 1.6. UAE is 1/50 max of the Saudi figures. (I would reference it but the computer seems to hang up on that address. It comes from the DOE.)
Quote:And you also haven’t explained why most of these countries you seek to point out are now democracies. There is a pattern developing here, rue. That pattern is that the US doesn’t seek to undermine or determine the fates of democratic nations, but does seem to try to undermine and determine the fates of dictators, and in some cases has determined these countries fates right into being liberal democracies. Ironically, I think you may be actually proving my point!
Originally posted by rue:
But I haven't yet covered Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, each with a sordid story of US intervention in support of a junta or dictator, and one where a US-supported dictator was removed for lack of compliance with US wishes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m sure you would have done just fine. I have faith in you.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Hello??? Finn......????
Finn: Did you miss me? I got a career to keep with too. So if I disappear for a while that’s why.
Signy: YES! I missed you! I was beginning to think that I'd have to switch sides of the argument just to keep this thread interesting, and frankly, I wasn't sure I was up to the task.
Welcome Back, and happy Friday!
I had a delivery that had to be out by today; that’s always hectic, and I have to go to Atlanta over the weekend on business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not going to go thru this in detail - it's in the history books for anyone with an interest. The US DEPOSED socialist governments, many of them democratically elected, to install dictators or juntas. Alternatively, it supported dictators to prevent national control of resources. The driving force was that preventing governments from nationalizing resources.
PS the 'goods' we export to Saudi Arabia are arms. Cozy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK and Signym,
For completeness sake, here's the rest of my list. I have to admit I did only cursory searches (country name[-i] cia coup) and selected the first impartial reference out of dozens.
CIA assasinations of foreign leaders were rejected as a tool of US foreign policy in the 1970's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36992-2004Apr23.html
"Is assassination a legitimate tool of foreign policy? Thirty years ago, a Senate select committee, after uncovering the history of half a dozen American plots to assassinate foreign leaders, gave a resounding no to that question."
However, covert-ops of various types continued on:
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/cia/index_body.html
The CIA’s emphasis on covert action has led the agency to support such world-class criminals as Panama’s General Manuel Noriega, Guatemala’s Colonel Julio Alpírez, Peru’s intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, and Chile’s General Manuel Contreras. In addition to the CIA involvement in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile in the 1970s, it has recently been disclosed that a CIA asset—General Contreras—directed assassinations in the United States against a Chilean official and an American citizen. ... Another operative on the CIA payroll was Peruvian intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos, who was responsible for two decades of human rights abuses in Peru. The CIA helped Montesinos flee the country in September 2000 to avoid standing trial for crimes that included the massacre of innocent civilians in the early 1990s."
The Iran Contra blunder cost the CIA political support for covert ops, which reduced the number of active 'interventions' after 1988. Concomittantly, democracy began to arise around the world.
Grenada
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
CAUSES OF CONFLICT: The U.S. invasion of Grenada and the toppling of it's Marxist government can be seen as part of a greater regional conflict.
Guatemala
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/
CIA and Assassinations:
The Guatemala 1954 Documents
These documents, including an instructional guide on assassination found among the training files of the CIA's covert "Operation PBSUCCESS," were among several hundred records released by the Agency on May 23, 1997 on its involvement in the infamous 1954 coup in Guatemala. After years of answering Freedom of Information Act requests with its standard "we can neither confirm nor deny that such records exist," the CIA has finally declassified some 1400 pages of over 100,000 estimated to be in its secret archives on the Guatemalan destabilization program.
Haiti
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html
The Rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic in early February. It constitutes a well armed, trained and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of Le Front pour l'avancement et le progrès d'Haiti (FRAPH), the "plain clothes" death squadrons, involved in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during the CIA sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
Honduras
http://www.newspoetry.org/1999/991226.html
Click here for a printable version.
The 1954 coup that deposed the democratically elected government of Guatemala has long been acknowledged to have been the result of CIA covert action. Recently declassified documents have shown a new, and more sinister light, on the CIA's involvement in an action that gave birth to some of the most brutally dictatorial regimes in modern history (see the CIA documents in the bibliography.)
Panama
http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Manual_Noriega.html
Manual Noriega
General-turned-president. Good pal of Papa Bush when he ran the CIA, in fact they were such good friends the CIA paid Noriega $USD 100 thousand per year to be a "CIA Asset" in Panama. They were still good pals even after the DEA figured out he was a drug dealer in 1975.
He made other friends in Washington, during th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I'm trying to find the crux of your argument and I'm getting nowhere fast. Setting aside discussion of whether the United States is better or worse than the USSR in terms of imperial behavior, a lot of your statements are hard to figure out.
DANG! I'll have to get to this later!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To continue...
I just don't "grok" you. I'm so in the dark I don't even have any questions- I'm still at the "HUH??? stage.
You appear to think that the United States has an important mission, a mission that is worth supporting coups, assassinations, and juntas:
QUOTE: This is the kind of small thinking that makes it difficult for people to understand why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq or why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did."
You said in more than one place, that we have to deal in the real world with real dictators and that we are doing horrible things to keep many countries as free and independent as possible:
QUOTE: " ...We do not do what we do because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse"
And yet, you've also said (in more than one place) that it's difficult export democracy, so if we're not exporting democracy, what are we exporting and what are we averting? What is worth the juntas and tyrannies that we support? What could be worse than that?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about this?
I assume that there isn't an argument on whether the US is the world's premier superpower (or one of the superpowers). So I'll start with that assumption.
Being the world's superpower, we can take on one of 3 roles:
1. sit on our hands and put on our blinders. Do absolutely nothing and hope that everything goes well.
2. Try and use our position to influence and bring about a better common good for the world/human kind.
3. Try and use our position to abusively, willfully and purposefully torture, afflict pain and suffering, and cause great calamity on everyone else who are not us.
Now, since obviously we aren't doing #1, do we think that we are doing #2 or #3? I think we mean to do #2, but we just suck at doing it most times. But for some reason, I think that there are a lot on this thread who thinks that we are doing #3.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dunno.
I did my own research (similar to Rue's) and came up with a list of nations/ rulers that we supported or are currently supporting militarily or thru CIA activity, or both:
Most of Western Europe in WWII
Mugabe (Congo dictatorship)
Suharto (Phillipines dictatorship)
Shah (Iran dictatorship)
Noreiga (Panama junta)
Marcos (Phillipines)
Hussein (Iraq dictatorship)
Saudi Royal family (Saudi Arabia monarchy)
Somoza (Nicaragua junta)
Pinochet (Chile junta)
Brazilian generals from 1964 (junta)
and the people we either assassinated or overthrew:
Mossadegh (Iraq, elected P, nationalize oil)
Joao (elected VP, land reform)
Arbenz (Guatemala, elected P, land reform)
Allende (Chile, elected P, nationalize copper)
Lumumba (Congo, elected P)
I could go on except lunch break is over....
it's gotta be more than we "really suck" at it. You can't be THAT consistently bad by accident, can you???
Karamov
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Signym,
I compiled this history of Bolivia, a country where the US meddled but not as heavily as in other countries.
Creating proxy despots HAS to be a US policy. It's clear even in Bolivia's case where US actions are not as blatant as in other countries.
Over the broad span of its history, in a two-steps-forward one-step-back pattern, out of colonial rule, rule of the oligarchs, and military rule, Bolivia has painfully achieved a form of democracy. Progress has been by REvolution rather than EVolution.
In the early 1900's Bolivia was thought of by the US as a land-locked resource-bare country of no strategic importance (until the recent discovery of natural gas deposits).
As a backwater, it was relatively unaffected by US intervention until the 1950s. During the Cold War, Bolivia was important as a token in the effort to contain Cuba and Communism. Since the advent of US involvement, covert and overt action has ALWAYS been on the side of dictators and ALWAYS opposed to economic reform.
The government is nominally a democracy in that since 1985 chnage in governments has been passed via elections. Unfortunately the vast majority of people who support massive economic change are outweighed by the small number of uber-capitalists who support US-friendly policies (following the 'one dollar = one vote' formula proposed by others as the working principle of capitalist democracies). Since policy change has been stalemated, the economy is literally being run by the IMF, with the usual results. In sum, the country is barely in control of its own government, and not at all in control of its own economy.
Whatever progress Bolivia has made, seems to be under its own initiative, under economic and political pressures that could have overwhelmed any advance at all.
* marks important advances
The Plunder Economy
The Spanish heavily mined the area for silver (it provided most of Spanish Empire's wealth) and they eventually stripped Bolivia's deposits.
*Bolivia achieved formal independence in 1825. The Bolivian Constitution was drawn up by Simon Bolivar.
Tin mining began in the mid 1800's and continued till the Depression when demand and prices dropped (remaining deposits were also more expensive to reach). Bolivia later failed to develop nitrate deposits off its coast, and Chile invaded Bolivia and annexed the coastal Atacama area (1884). That annexation also deprived Bolivia of a coastal access. Shortly thereafter, it lost the rubber-rich province of Acre to Brazil (1903). From 1932 to 1935 it waged war against Paraguay and lost.
The Military Failure (1936)
At that point politics became radicalized. Ex-military members especially felt betrayed by the current military. *In 1936 a group of military officers carried out a coup d'etat and tried to institute a military variety of socialism. Standard Oil properties in Bolivia were nationalized and the social welfare-oriented constitution was adopted.
Such odd configurations as military reformist groups developed. Different forms of socialism competed. And all vied for power with conservative military rule.
When demand for wolframite (tin ore) spiked during WWII, inflation made living conditions ever worse. Miners were hyper-exploited. Chaos reigned.
Free Elections ... (1952)
*In 1951 a populist candidate Victor Paz Estenssoro was elected, but a coup prevented him from being inaugurated.
*In 1952 peasants and miners, angered at the coup, revolted in what became named the April Revolution of 1952, and overthrew the military regime and restored Paz to the Presidency. He introduced universal suffrage, nationalized the tin mines, redistributed land, and improved education and the status of indigenous peoples. During the period between 1952 and 1964 Bolivia had a free press, free elections, and the most stable government ever up to today.
But at the same time the US manipulated tin prices causing them to crash, and forcing Bolivia to give the 'tin barons' usurious compensation for their mines (1953). Land reform was not extended to large foreign-
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHAAAAHHHH!!!!
When I read your post I wanted to bang my head against a wall!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, your research wasn’t terrible exhaustive. I don’t have a lot of time to go into each of these in detail, nor do I want to, but I’ll simply make a few quick points to help balance out the argument.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I dunno.
I did my own research (similar to Rue's) and came up with a list of nations/ rulers that we supported or are currently supporting militarily or thru CIA activity, or both:
You claim that Mugabe is a dictator supported by the US, yet Mugabe was elected as President of Zimbabwe (not the Congo), and the US supported him because it was believed that he would liberate Zimbabwe. He turned out to be another dictator, but the US couldn’t have known that, and indeed the entire international community was fooled. On the other hand, you claim that Mossaddeq (whom you incorrectly call the President of Iraq) was removed from power by the US. True, the US and Britain did support Mossaddeq’s removal, but he was not the President of Iraq, he was the Prime Minister of Iran and he was not elected he was appointed by the Shah. And after several years in power he used his appointed position to seize authoritative control over the military and declare an Iranian military state, not unlike the way Hitler took control of Germany. Neither Mossaddeq nor Mugabe had liberal democracy in mind. Yet somehow you’ve incorrectly drawn a conclusion that the US prefers to supports dictators, when in reality that is not what the information suggest at all. Rather the US supported one dictator and didn’t support another. It is not possible for the US to never support dictators, because often that is all that is available to support.
Somehow you’ve ignored that the US also overthrow both Noreiga and Hussein, two dictators you claim the US supported. Panama is now a democracy as a direct result of US action, and Iraq is moving towards democracy as a direct result of US action.
The US did not really support the Samoza dynasty. The US supported Sacasa in 1934 and Anastasio Somoza Garcia in 1935. But there was little US support for the Samozas in general. The US was indifferent to the Samoza dynasty.
The US did support Chile’s free market under Pinochet, and the US had no love for the Marxist Salvador Allende, but that doesn’t mean the US supported Pinochet’s regime. The US supports China’s free market, but one might be laughed at if one were to seriously opine that the US supports China’s communist government. There is very little evidence for the often exaggerated claims that the US toppled Allende or supported the martial law that follows. This is perhaps one of the biggest cases of left-wing propaganda there is.
The US does support the Saudi Royal family. This is one example in which you are correct. This is not an aspect of US foreign policy that I completely agree with, although I understand it.
The US did support Marcos. After all Marcos was democratically elected by a free and liberal democratic Philippine government, and even reelected. The problem was that Marcos, while democratically elected for 8 years, did not want to leave power, so he declared Martial Law, and became a dictator. The US couldn’t have known that.
Suharto was the president of Indonesia not the Philippines. And I don’t know of any US support for Suharto.
The US did support the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. It was probably one of the most liberal regimes that Iran has ever had. With the ‘78 Iranian Revolution and the establishment of the Ayatollah, Iran regressed to a totalitarian state, where freedoms were virtually nonexistent.
Finally, rue’s “history” of Bolivia is one-sided. She claims that the US is always opposed to economic reform and always on the side of dictators, but fails to adequately support these claims. The US has indeed supported economic reform in Bolivia. Huge financial US support for economic reform in 1956 brought massive Bolivian inflation under control, even at a loss to American investors, and the strongest economic growth in Bolivian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
but fails to adequately support ... claims
Finn, I specifically included MANY urls. Anyone with an interest (which you apparently don't have) can look up versions of Bolivia's history.
On the other hand, you provide NO evidence for ANY of your claims, either in this post or any others.
You are a fraud.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, this thread is Trippy.
Hell of a time to run across this after the ol'night of steady drinkin'
Easy on the conflict folks.
~SBC
God Bless America, and God Save the Queen!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You keep telling yourself that, rue. None of this makes your assertion that the US always supports dictators or never supports economic reform any less ridiculous.
Originally posted by rue:
but fails to adequately support ... claims
Finn, I specifically included MANY urls. Anyone with an interest (which you apparently don't have) can look up versions of Bolivia's history.
On the other hand, you provide NO evidence for ANY of your claims, either in this post or any others.
You are a fraud.
A list of urls at the bottom of your post is not evidence. It’s a list of urls, which any fool with an internet connection can find just as easily as you can. You didn’t reference a single one of them. And even if you had referenced them, you still couldn’t have provided evidence for that ridiculous assertion, because no evidence exists. It’s a blatant falsehood. Anyone who even skims the history, the real history, of Bolivia will see immediately that the US has supported economic reform and has not always supported dictators.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Finn, I think the term Rue used was "prefers" dictators, not "always" choses dictators. And when you said "Anyone who even skims the history, the real history, of Bolivia will see immediately that the US has supported economic reform and has not always supported dictators" it would be kind of nice if you would provide references to this "real" history so that we could "skim" it ourselves. Among other things, I'd like to see what kind of "economic reform" we supported. My guess is that it's the IMF kind, but without any references it's impossible to validate your (so far) unsupported assertion.
Mea culpa, oops, my bad... on my previous post. There's nothing wrong with my research, just my memory- I was typing away as fast as I could during my lunch w/o being able to check my references. However, my point still stands, so I'll correct and clarify a further down.
But you still haven't answered my question... well, maybe "question" is too focused a term... my bogglement over your viewpoint(s). Aside from the fact that you've contradicted yourself a half-dozen times in this thread (no we don't support dicators, well maybe we do, but it's to export democracy, which is difficult, so we're doing bad, but for the greater good) you haven't completed the thought- what is WORTH the rather long list of tyrants that we've supported? I mean, if it's for some greater good there must be one h*lluva reason that's worth hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives. Does it come down to comparing how many people were killed by one nation (USSR) versus how many people were killed by another (USA)? Or what?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, back to your shredding of my previous post...
You're right, I should have said Mobutu (Sese Seko), not Mugabe. The facts are that Mobutu deposed Lumumba in 1965, and Lumumba was murdered about a year afterwards. There are many USA papers (including Presidential papers) that describe Allen Dulles' orders to assassinate Lumumba. Mobutu ruled for 32 years as dictator with USA help.
Yes, Mossadeq was the PM of Iran (not Iraq, I've been typing so much about Iraq my fingers went on autopilot!). In 1950, the situation in Iran was the the British were receiving more in oil taxes than the Iranians were deriving from oil royalties. Mossadeq was a member of the Lower House (a Majli) amd the head of a committee on oil resources. The Majlis voted to nationalize oil production in 1951, and the Shah appointed Mossadeq PM as a concession to nationalist feeling. Mossadeq resigned in 1952 over a dispute with the Shah, but was reappointed after three days because of pro-Mossadeq riots. In 1953, Mossadeq dissolved the legislative bodies. In that same year, Eisenhower and the British created a plan to depose Mossadeq, called Operation Ajax, and restored the Shah to power. The Shah held power from 1941 to 1979 (except for 1953), so Mossadeq was not in power for "several years". The Shah wasn't all bad, he modernized some of Iran and broke up the landowning oligarchy in favor of peasants in order to consolidate his power. But his secret police- Savak- made even the CIA cringe, and I think it was inflation and corruption that led to his downfall. There are a lot of "might have been's" in Iranian history, much like Chile and the near-term future of Venezuela. If, for example, the British had offered oil terms that were the same as what other Mideast countries were negotiating (50/50 split) much of the drama might have been avoided.
Marcos's martial law lasted for 10 years. During that time, the USA continued to support him because of the presence of Subic Bay (known around the world as Pubic Bay, once a source of great revenue and great shame to Phillipinos).
You don't know of any support for Suharto? How about these quotes from declassified telegrams and State Deaprtment minutes concerning the invasion of East Timor and the killing of 100,000 civilians with USA materiel?
Suharto:
"We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor]
Ford:
"We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have."
Kissinger:
"It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction if whatever happens, happens after we return.... If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home. The President will be back on Monday at 2 PM Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned."
Bear in mind that the USA-supplied weapons and materiel were being supplied even while the invasion was taking place, and that USA law forbade the use of these weapons except in self defense.
OK, hmmm... moving along...
Ok, I'll have to get to Chile later. The invoveld included the CIA, Kennecot Copper, ITT etc.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello? (voice echoes)....Anybody here?
(Echoing sounds of slow footsteps, then a heavy thump as a large pack lands on hard ground. Sounds of straps being unstrapped, some unintelligible muttering, then... )
"Well, I guess I'll have to unpack over here..."
(Unpacking noises, things being set on the ground, muttering...)
"Maybe someone will come along...."
(Long wait, then approaching footstep)
"Well, hello! Come closer! Don't be afraid... I've got here some shiny pretty things to look at. Look, see, look at this, it's called a wonderment glass."
(A few shy, sliding footsteps)
"See here, you look through it, and everything will look like it really is... Take it, it's OK. You can't hurt it, it's unbreakable."
(Rustle of fabric, a long pause, a sharp indrawn breath, frozen...)
"Dang. I knew I shoulda saved that for the last."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCavalier, SIGNYM, and Rue... you're my heros. Maybe even Hero is too.
It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!
Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.
If someone is a warmonger I say call them on it and don't bother playing with them. Liars love to talk... it's like argueing that there isn't such a thing as a Bible Code with creeps like Billy Graham. They just don't get it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mmm hmmm.
Yes, well I noticed how Finn has not come up with the "real" history of Bolivia (or any place else for that matter) so that we can exchange something other than unsupported opinions.
And Finn has YET to answer my basic...puzzlement, I guess... about his (her?) view of what the heck we're doing, and why. I've tried, I really have, to figure out the driving force behind the discussion, but it's beyond me!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I bet myself $100 I have the answer. I'm waiting to see if I'm right.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOOOOOH! Tell me!! Tell me!!! Tell me!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
It's so HIlarious listening to Yanks go on about how democratic they will make the world, and have, when they can't seem to remember Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Argentina, Honduaras, Iran/Contra, etc. The list of American despotism is long and well known. The USA never brought democracy to anyone anywhere, including (if you get right down to it) the USA! No, not Japan either... jeez, read a history book. A new one!
Notice how the arguement is following the FOX/White Houses new excuses for the invasion of Iraq? "Oh, we are bringing democracy to them"... bullshit. Just utter shit.
Good morning Ghoulman. Hadda take a break from this thread after that crack Finn made when I spoke of the real social change brought about by men like Dr. King and Ghandi without firing a shot. He made that really ugly joke about how ineffectual "a nice 'I have a dream' speech" would have been against Hitler. Well, that left me speechless for a week until your comments above reminded me of the larger picture.
More and more I see how my country's sense of self is fueled by illusion, by bragartry, by denial. Finn thinks we defeated Hitler with bombs and bullets. First of all, we Americans had precious little to do with defeating Hitler. Europe and the U.S.S.R. defeated Hitler's armies, not the Americans. And yet, every American schoolboy and girl thinks we stormed the beach at Normandy and saved the world from the Nazis.
Likewise, the fall of communism, another Russo-European phenomenon for which we take credit.
Now we're "bringing democracy" to Iraq. I think you're right, Ghoulman--how are we supposed to do that when we don't even respect what little democracy actually happens in this country? Democracy in America has always functioned in the shadow of the plutocrats. Nothing gets done in this country except by their leave. When a suitably rich man doesn't like our democratic process, he and his cronies have always gotten around it somehow. I do think there's a real democratic spirit in this land (thank you, Iroquois Confederacy!) and even these rich bastards that pull the strings have a sentimental attachment to the idea, but here on the ground, there ain't a lot of democracy happening.
Again I will say that the reason Signy doesn't understand Finn's position is that Finn is representing this force of illusion, bragartry and denial. He says what he says because he feels compelled to, not because it has any internal logic. Finn is a nationalist, he may say that he doesn't agree with this or that policy, but at base he's defending the honor of his country. His allegiance is not to Truth or Justice or Humanity or even simple logic, but to America, right or wrong.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
after about an 2 hours or so of reading this thread and following sources... I was wondering what each of you think about this little scenerio
Lets say that a group of small children are playing around an old railway terminal. Two rails leads in and out of this terminal, each leads into a different tunnel; one's still in use and the other one isn't. One child decides that he'll venture into the tunnel that is out of commission while the other kids went into the active one.
Now, here's the dilemma.
At this moment, you notice that a train is running near headding toward the active tunnel.
You are faced with a choice, either you switch the tracks and have the train run into the inactive tunnel, only losing one child; or you left it as is and leave the majority up for dead.
What will you do? Most people will choose to save the majority and sacrifice the minority. One is only a small price to pay when many are at risk, isn't it?
But on the other hand, why should the kid who decided that it was unintelligent to fool around an active rail be punished for making the right decision? (under the circumstances of course)
Then of course this draws out another question, the inactive tunnel is out of commission for a reason, would you put the lives of the passenger at risk?
-----------------------------------------------
All I'm trying to say here is that things arn't always black and white, there are rights and there are wrongs; and there're even factors and we did not take into account for.
If there's anything I ever learned about politics, is that being hardhead won't get too far...
(that's why Dubbya isn't gettin very far)
"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Allow me to characterize the agument as a conflict between the forces of Compassion and the forces of Tough Noogies. Compassion says that making friends with dictators is simply wrong and must be avoided, while Tough Noogies says, "Yeah, but that's the way it is, so deal!" You see, rhetorically, Tough Noogies has not disagreed with compassion (supporting dictators is wrong) but Tough Noogies believes that Compassion is delusional. A social contract based on compassion is a pretty idea, but it'll never happen and Tough Noogies can show us stalinist russia to prove it.
Not to jump right into the middle of this or anything, but I do believe good ol' Jimmy Carter attempted to implement the Compassion's more ideal frame of reference, (read here if you are unfamiliar with his policy: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/55.htm ) lofty goals, to be sure, and yet they didn't always, (or even often) work in the "real world."
Now, this might be more an issue related to his leadership, and not his ideals, and yet I am continually brought back to the hostages in Iran. When a more pragmatic, "Tough Noogie" was sworn into office the hostages were freed. Of course they would have been freed anyways, that is not in question. It just seems to be the obvious polarity between the two, (Reagan and Carter) and the successes and failures in policy that raises doubt in my mind.
Again, easily could be due to implementation and not due to the policy itself.
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kohan,
What you present as a morally complex problem, seems to me simply to be an impossible situation. A child or children will die no matter what you do. You're screwed. I don't think the lesser of two evils applies when both evils are unthinkable. Furthermore, no one actually presented with your exquisitely improbable situation would be reasoning it out, they'd try to get all the kids off the tracks, do the best they could and blame themselves for whatever went wrong.
So, I don't see a connection between your parable and this discussion other than its putative moral: some things aren't as black and white as we might like.
Well, yeah...
But what about this reality/fiction debate? People are accusing other people of living in a fantasy or believing fictions as if they were facts. When people post their sources, the sources are impuned. The struggle here, seems to be of the highest order, a battle for reality itself. But whose reality is the real reality?
To me personally, this is a very interesting fracture in consensual reality. What happens to consensual reality when half the people don't consent? In the current political scene it looks like the people in power decide what reality is, and what is that, if not fascism?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Now, this might be more an issue related to his leadership, and not his ideals, and yet I am continually brought back to the hostages in Iran. When a more pragmatic, "Tough Noogie" was sworn into office the hostages were freed. Of course they would have been freed anyways, that is not in question. It just seems to be the obvious polarity between the two, (Reagan and Carter) and the successes and failures in policy that raises doubt in my mind.
I'd say the problem lies not with the men but with the system. I believe that our political system is basically a "Tough Noogies" system. Dr. King didn't get anywhere using conventional political channels and I don't think a personally compassionate man in the whitehouse has much of a chance against the entrenched forces of "Tough Noogies" (or what they used to call "Realpolitic").
Perhaps it's true. Perhaps if America didn't do anything illegal, didn't support dictators, didn't endorse death squads, didn't torture and kill the occasional detainee, we'd be overrun by our enemies. I sure as hell doubt it, though.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'd say the problem lies not with the men but with the system. I believe that our political system is basically a "Tough Noogies" system. Dr. King didn't get anywhere using conventional political channels and I don't think a personally compassionate man in the whitehouse has much of a chance against the entrenched forces of "Tough Noogies" (or what they used to call "Realpolitic").
Perhaps it's true. Perhaps if America didn't do anything illegal, didn't support dictators, didn't endorse death squads, didn't torture and kill the occasional detainee, we'd be overrun by our enemies. I sure as hell doubt it, though.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Perhaps if America did nothing it wouldn't be in hot water, perhaps it would, I don't much care to debate that. For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes the best intentioned actions can result in the worst reactions. Road to hell and all that. Similarily, sometimes the lack of action, can lead to the worst reactions.
I don't think there is always (or ever)the obvious panacea for social problems, and if, perchance, you are aware of it, then please, (in all seriousness, I don't claim to know everything) inform us.
Similarily, hindsight is an exceptionally wonderful thing, often claimed to provide 20/20 vision on history, (though I might find a contention or two with that). Its very easy to be critical of decisions made in the past, (and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that no analysis needs to be made, more that a degree of objectivity might be more ideal) when you have the luxury of hindsight. Often decisions need to be made, and often those involve two evils and picking between the lesser of them, (nevermind that one evil is a rock and the other a hard place). Be that evil inaction, (see the Allies in WW2, see also appeasement) or choosing between two actions with unsatisfactory effects. I suppose you can subscribe to the belief that there is always a "better" way, but, personally, I don't think life is that easy.
But, please, (again, in all seriousness) if you know of a panacea for all our problems, please inform me.
EDITED FOR CLARITY
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME