Thoughts on America's International Impression and Vice Versa

[meanlittlechimp]

Originally Posted by wildcat

Chile 73. CIA policework.
Hungary 56. Voice of America.
Chimp asks odd questions. It is as if she did not know.

How is overthrowing democratically elected Allende and installing a dictator, police work? Police work is preventing crime not perpetrating it.

Was assassinating Lumumba police work. Assassinating Walter Rodney in Guyana? Installing Suharto? Hiring mercenaries in Latin America to murder priests, labor leaders and teachers?

We installed the Baathists in Iraq, and overthrew Kareem because they wanted to nationalize their oil industry. Or in other words own the oil on their own land instead of BP or Texaco. For this crime, we had to oust him and install brutal fascists, just like we did with the Shah(when Iran was actually the most progressive state in the region). When they get mad and blow up buses; of course they're the evil ones who hate freedom and the American way of life.

We invaded Guatemala at the behest of United Fruit Company. Communism was just the bullshit excuse they used before terrorism. Our companies controlled 90% of the world's aluminum supply yet we have no bauxite. You think that happened by accident? You think the right put us in massive debt to spread freedom or help other people, when they were against the GI bill for returning vets?

This stuff isn't even debated by senior right wing policymakers. It's only their ignorant constituents who don't get it.

[Peguy]

I don't believe we installed the Baathists to power in Iraq.

[meanlittlechimp]

Originally Posted by Peguy

I don't believe we installed the Baathists to power in Iraq.

There was a CIA station bureau chief that admitted to it. Several documents also surfaced after the passage of the freedom of information act. There are few different spellings, do a search on overthrow of Qasim or Kaseem. Albright, Sec of State under Clinton, publicly admitted to it on camera as well.

We didn't support the baathists in the sense we liked them. We just saw them as a lesser evil; or in other words we don't give a shit what dictators ruin your own country as long we get to keep your oil. Once the baathists decided to nationalize their oil industry later anyways. We looked for any pretense to invade and oust them. Which is why when 9/11 happened the neo-cons were jumping for joy.

[Peguy]

Originally Posted by meanlittlechimp

There was a CIA station bureau chief that admitted to it. Several documents also surfaced after the passage of the freedom of information act.

We didn't support the baathists in the sense we liked them. We just saw them as a lesser evil; or in other words we don't give a shit what dictators ruin your own country as long we get to keep your oil. Once the baathists decided to nationalize their oil industry later anyways. We looked for any pretense to invade and oust them anyways.

Really? Are there any sources you know of about this? I was under the impression the Baathists were largely pro-Soviet; and only during the Iran-Iraq war did we support them - because they were a lesser evil than Iran.

[meanlittlechimp]

Originally Posted by Peguy

Really? Are there any sources you know of about this? I was under the impression the Baathists were largely pro-Soviet; and only during the Iran-Iraq war did we support them - because they were a lesser evil than Iran.

We helped instigate the Iran-Iraq war and armed both sides. The theocracy and anti-american sentiment rose in Iran because we overthrew their secular constitutional democracy under Mossdegh and installed a repressive monarchy (the Shah) that could not have held power without directly military support by the US.

Our military intelligence trained the Shah's death squads to murder all dissidents and the only ones willing to die to overthrow this corrupt puppet regime were religious zealots, who weren't afraid of firing squads Religious fanatics can come in handy. If that happened here, Evangilicals would probably lead the revolt, while liberal pansies hid behind their books.

Similarly in Iraq, once the Baathists also made it clear they were going to nationalize their oil industry after ousting Kaseem/Qasim - we no longer supported them.

Here are some random links I pulled on Qasim ExecutedToday.com
United States and Saddam Hussein - Bloodbath in West Asia | Aby The Liberal
This history is well known to EVERYONE in the middle east. Which is why they don't see us a shining light of democracy or good will.

[Peguy]

Yes Im well aware of the history behind the Iranian revolution.

[Tiltyred]

Originally Posted by wildcat

Chile 73. CIA policework.
Hungary 56. Voice of America.
Chimp asks odd questions. It is as if she did not know.

Yeah, ok, thank you. I'm like, "Um, we don't get to elect the CIA/Secret Service..."

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Peguy

And who exactly is going to attack us?

Al-Qaeda (and similar organizations), apparently, and by extension any regime that blatantly shelters them. You do know that the war in Afghanistan is a NATO mission, right? And while countries like Germany seem to be less help in an actual fight than the military powerhouse that is New Zealand, their numbers (for things like reconstruction, supplies and other support operations if nothing else) and economic resources are not to be taken lightly in that or any future war.

The United States is going to lose quite a bit of its relative power over the coming decades, and an alliance of hostile emerging states is not far outside the Realm of possibility, especially if one of those states mistakenly believes they can engage in only a limited war through such an attack. Its very difficult to form defensive alliances at the last minute; with pre-existing collective security agreements all of the bargaining has already been completed, the institutional support structures are already there, and alliances made years ago are not reversed over petty and transitory disagreements in the interim.

I assumed you were something of an "Atlanticist" in the cultural (if not military) sense based on vague memories of some of your past posts, including our discussions concerning the relative importance of common cultural values, traditions, and identity in the context of "Western" civilization, its characteristics, and the political/philosophical implications of the same (for instance, remember when we were debating the merits of John Jay's contributions to The Federalist Papers ). I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting your position, I know how frustrating it is when people are debating with you based on misunderstandings of what your actual position is.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lowtech redneck

The United States is going to lose quite a bit of its relative power over the coming decades

Normally I agree with almost all of what you say, Lowtech.

But I used to drink in a wine bar called, "The Decline of the West as We Know it Today". Called for short, "The Decline".

But I think the decline of the West is based on a false perception. And that perception is linear growth. We presume that the various State actors will grow lineally. And if that is right then the United States will lose its relative power.

However the United States and other countries are growing exponentially and as long as this continues, they will never be overtaken.

So today I think that, "The Decline of the West as we Know it Today", is a fine and maudlin name for a wine bar, but I think we will be drinking there for a long time to come.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Tiltyred

Yeah, ok, thank you. I'm like, "Um, we don't get to elect the CIA/Secret Service..."

But you do elect their political masters.