 |
| |
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Actually you weren't refuting it. Failing to understand it as applied to the previous post, possibly. Look at the argument Chris was presenting: because Saddam had been an enemy of the U.S. for x number of years, then he could not have been helped by the C.I.A. in the past, or have been a 'client', stooge or ally of the U.S. , because the leftist/opposition press would have broadcast this, and he, Chris, would have known about it too...
|
I think what he was saying was, since *everyone* knows that Bin Laden used to be an American ally, the same would be true with Saddam.
And Boris, I'm just saying that it's not America, it's the entire system, that can be viewed as wrong. You cannot condemn America alone, for its acions were based on a larger, worldwide political philosophy.
And I wasn't saying everyone, just everyone who could supported dictators at some point.
Last edited by Goingonit on 18-10-2002 at 06:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Actually you weren't refuting it. Failing to understand it as applied to the previous post, possibly. Look at the argument Chris was presenting: because Saddam had been an enemy of the U.S. for x number of years, then he could not have been helped by the C.I.A. in the past, or have been a 'client', stooge or ally of the U.S. , because the leftist/opposition press would have broadcast this, and he, Chris, would have known about it too... |
I'm affraid your operating off flawed ideas, old boy.
First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.
Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.
Sorry, your whole theory just went down in flames.
Was fairly interesting though. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm affraid your operating off flawed ideas, old boy.
First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.
Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.
Sorry, your whole theory just went down in flames.
Was fairly interesting though. |
Which press would that be, then Chris? The press you prefer to read, or the 'other' press? Are American newspapers the sole repositories of universal truths, or are there any other publications that might have access to facts- facts that might discomfort a current administration trying to garner support for an attack on a regime its predecessors once propped up?
'Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.'
This is an assertion- not an objective fact. Organising an international coalition (and a 'home' coalition) against Iraq needs untidy and unpleasant facts like previous support for Iraq and Saddam forgotten:
'Kroft. A lot of that equipment that's facing the United States right now was
sold to the Iraqis by you, Sarkis.
Sarkis. Yeah, but I didn't sell it eight years ago to fight ourselves today.
That was sold to fight Khomeini. And we were against Khomeini. U.S. had hostages
there, and I said, I'll go ahead and take my share in it.
Kroft. So you sold the weapons to the Iraqis to fight the. . .
Sarkis. Khomeinis . . . not to fight the, you know, Americans.
Kroft. Right. Because that would be best for America . . . and best maybe for
Sarkis.
Sarkis. Well, you get compensated sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that.
And if Sarkis wouldn't do it, somebody else would do it.
Kroft. And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of
armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions.
German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only
approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but [also sold] armed helicopters and
antiaircraft missile systems.
This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster
bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United
States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed
Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the
sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes.
Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait.
Sarkis. I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also
they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have
anything on my conscience. I did not sell the weapons to kill the American boys.
Kroft. Which agencies of the U.S. government knew about Sarkis and his deals
with Iraq? Well, according to Sarkis, almost all of them. And federal court
documents show that Sarkis Soghanalian had a relationship with U.S. intelligence
agencies for decades, and has performed work on their behalf.
Not all of Sarkis's deals with Iraq involve weapons. He arranged the sale of
$280 million in uniforms to the Iraqi army. And Sarkis's partners in the deal
included former Vice President Spiro Agnew, a former Attorney General, Colonel
Jack Brennan.
The partners used their influence to get ex-President Nixon to provide them with
these letters of introduction [shown on screen] to heads of state around the
world.
[To Sarkis] Do you think there was anything unusual about a former Vice
President and a former Attorney General and a former Chief of Staff for the
President of the United Stateas to want to be selling military uniforms to the
Iraqis?
Sarkis. They were not only in the uniform business. They would sell their
mothers if they could, just to make the money.
Kroft. Some of his partners in that deal aren't talking to him
at all today. They're in court suing Sarkis over the multimillion dollar
commissions they say he hasn't paid them
... [To Sarkis] Are you a Merchant of Death? You are an arms salesman.
Sarkis. No. I am a coordinator of industries that produce arms. But I am not a
salesman. I don't carry no bag. I don't carry no catalogue in my pocket to sell
arms to anybody.'
from:
 Attachment: united states arms sales to iraq excerpts of recent cbs `60 minutes' broadcast (house of representat
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
And Boris, I'm just saying that it's not America, it's the entire system, that can be viewed as wrong. You cannot condemn America alone, for its acions were based on a larger, worldwide political philosophy.
And I wasn't saying everyone, just everyone who could supported dictators at some point. |
I don't find that acceptable, either. Blaming the system doesn't wash. After all, plenty of Nazis blamed the system they operated under. They still committed the crimes, should they not be held accountable?
Besides, the U.S., moreso than any other nation, has the ability to break the system and set better standards. Since we know such actions are morally wrong, why don't we start doing that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
I don't think anyone's forgetting America's support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Chris is saying that he wasn't brought to power by the CIA, or else we'd know about it. |
I don't think that is his argument:
'First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.
Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.'
from one of Chris's previous posts. Unless Chris is an avid reader of left of centre periodicals, he seems to have a great deal of faith in an osmosis method for information reaching him.
Does CBS count as a 'press' outlet? If so, then Chris missed the deals and associations outlined in that broadcast. I inserted an internet link to review of a book on C.I.A./Iraq/Saddam links, which book again Chris would seem not to have read. Possibly because it was not an 'American' book. His reasoning, such as it is, seems to be grounded in appeals to emotion and groundless airy assertions on the omniscient coverage of the American press and his supposed Argus-eyed watch on it.
As for your previous post- I don't have a 'quarrel' with America! No more than I have a 'quarrel' with Australia, where I now live, for its tacit support of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and West Papua. I can quite happily separate opposition to a particular party/government from opposition to a country/people- that chauvinist nationalist stance is not one to which I have ever subscribed .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
Goingonit, I'm not sure why you picked 1979 as the 'conscience' date for the United States.
Ferdinand Marcos was still in power in the Philippines. Mobutu was still in power in Zaire. Jeane Kirkpatrick had yet to form her 'Women for Dictators' glee club at the United Nations.
El Salvador was a running sore of civil war, right wing death squads and assassinations. Nicaragua was enjoying the attentions of the U.S. backed Contras after having just toppled the loathsome Somoza regime -(also U.S. backed).
Guatemala, well, see Nicaragua, above- similar situation, different players, army atrocities against indigenous peoples an added elemnt of spice.
Zia ul Haq of Pakistan was propped up by the U.S.
So was Fujimori in Peru.
King Hassan II of Morocco was also a friend- the same king whose country invaded the Western Sahara, and whose regime illegally detained and sometimes just plain forgot about civilian opposition leaders and supporters.
Then of course you have American support for Renamo in Mozambique, tacit support for South Africa (in illegal occupation of Namibia) and for South African incursions into Angola, and for Jonas Savimbi's murdering Unita forces.
Was the U.S. alone in supporting these scions of humanity? Well, no- and the U.S.S.R. as was, was busy supporting some of their opponents. The question is though- do you feel that there should be a moral equivalence between the policy of the United States and the U.S.S.R. or China?
Or do you think there should be a divergence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm affraid your operating off flawed ideas, old boy.
First, you ASSUMED I said he could never be a friend because he has been an enemy for so long, and like an Ivory tower thinker, you failed to see the forrest for the trees.
What I actually said was the press would have blasted such an association YEARS ago if it were known.
Second, ANYONE that follows the activities of the US press, knows this to be true, not just a shot in the dark.
Sorry, your whole theory just went down in flames.
|
Sometimes from my tour d'ivoire I see further than those in bunkers with blinkers on.
From 'Saddam's War- The Origin of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response' by John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, publ. faber and faber, 1991 :
'Throughout the 1960s, in fact, Ba'athism was recognized by the West as a useful counterweight to the spread of Communism in the region. Western hegemony in the Arab states on the Soviet Union's southern flank was crumbling under pressure from Nasserism in Egypt, a civil war in Lebanon and by the 1958 coup which brought Brigadier Qassem to power in Iraq, with the backing of the Iraqi Communist Party. U.S. forces landed in Lebanon to prevent the nationalist upsurge spreading and also to threaten the new Iraqi regime with intervention if it tampered with Western oil interests. A motive for the suspicion with which Saddam and other Ba'athist exiles were later treated by Nasser's secret police was that they were suspected of having dealings with the C.I.A. ; Saddam himself was said to have made regular visits to the U.S. Embassy when he was in exile in Cairo.
After Qassem was overthrown by the Ba'athist military coup of February 8th 1963, the Paris magazine L'Express wrote:
'The Iraqi coup was inspired by the C..I.A. . The British government and Nasser himself were aware of the putsch preparations.'
Qassem had revealed just four days before the coup that he had received a warning from the U.S. State Department that America would impose sanctions against Iraq if it went ahead with plans to exploit untapped oil concessions from the foreign multinationals in 1961. The Ba'athist coup of 1963 headed off this threat to Western interests but also provoked one of the bloodiest periods of Iraq's violent history.
[...]
In the following weeks before they were thrown out in November, Ba'athist thugs wearing the uniform of the National Guard hunted down hundreds of leftists, using names and addresses provided by the C.I.A., then tortured and summarily executed them, despite their assurances to the Americans that members of the Communist party would be put on trila before courts martial.
[..] In Iraq the right wing of the Ba'ath party, led by Saddam and Bakr, was in the ascendancy....Nasser even sent a warning to the Iraqi prime minister, Taher Yahya, that Egyptian intelligence had learnt of a Ba'athist plot to stage a coup 'for the benefit of the C.I.A.' . '
pp 54-56
The book also provides transcripts of meetings between senators from American grain producing states and Saddam, and details of the conversations between American ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam and other Iraqi officials. Well worth a read. Perhaps you could convince some American newspaper or magazine to start a serialisation, but I don't think you'd find many takers in today's bellicose climate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
|
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Goingonit, I'm not sure why you picked 1979 as the 'conscience' date for the United States.
Ferdinand Marcos was still in power in the Philippines. Mobutu was still in power in Zaire. Jeane Kirkpatrick had yet to form her 'Women for Dictators' glee club at the United Nations.
El Salvador was a running sore of civil war, right wing death squads and assassinations. Nicaragua was enjoying the attentions of the U.S. backed Contras after having just toppled the loathsome Somoza regime -(also U.S. backed).
Guatemala, well, see Nicaragua, above- similar situation, different players, army atrocities against indigenous peoples an added elemnt of spice.
Zia ul Haq of Pakistan was propped up by the U.S.
So was Fujimori in Peru.
King Hassan II of Morocco was also a friend- the same king whose country invaded the Western Sahara, and whose regime illegally detained and sometimes just plain forgot about civilian opposition leaders and supporters.
Then of course you have American support for Renamo in Mozambique, tacit support for South Africa (in illegal occupation of Namibia) and for South African incursions into Angola, and for Jonas Savimbi's murdering Unita forces.
|
Maybe I was off by a few years (Make it 1991). But my point is the same: that was a cold-war method of thinking that has now been supplanted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Goingonit
Maybe I was off by a few years (Make it 1991). But my point is the same: that was a cold-war method of thinking that has now been supplanted. |
And all that I can say is I wish.
This is more in the fashion than ever. It is not covert anymore it is open (as there is no credible opposition) and unilateral. These days they do not need to provide help to the opposition secretly trough CIA, they can go and start an outright war, which is just happening. The purpose of both systems was regime change in a 'souvereign' country. This is just much more blunt, and will have a higher success rate than the former, as no regime can go againt the US army straight. OK Vietnamese managed to do it with huge losses, but these days it is even less probable.
So apart from Iraq there is Iran, North Korea, on the list of "three" and Libya, Syria, and two more... on the list of "seven" axis of evil countries.
"axis of evil" what moron invented this term,  must be the influence of Hollywood... 
UN is rendered useless with the latest developments. It is only China, EU, and USSR that mean something but it is not outright opposition, and maybe India and Pakistan...
We will see where this 'bully' tactic will lead the world.
edit:
what is even more scary: It is this kind of unilateral behaviour that might prompt someone who is rightly afraid for his wellbeing and cornered like a hunted fox, to give a nuke to fundie terrorists (or maybe even Pakistan could accidentally loose one), send it on a ship and detonate in NY harbour... as a message. After all it is war.
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 18-10-2002 at 16:48
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-10-2002 06:12
...
)... I am against the US intervention in those regions... There was no rational reason to go to any of those places. Just the US's narcissistic need to play policeman...
Perhaps, this reason is- to provide US bashers with new arguments and new proofs of US evilness?
|