 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Let see, we discouraged Iranian generals from leading a coup that would have reversed the Iranian revolution.
|
While the Shah was in control, we did not concern ourself with the methods he used to maintain that control. When the half-assed coup talk came around, the issue in Iran was already decided - nothing a few generals would have done at that point would have made the slightest difference, except in the mind of Brzezinski, who was the big coup proponent.
quote:
We encouraged the fall of Marcos.
|
After decades of letting him run amok because he was our boy. Faced with a communist insurgency, ever increasing popular resentment, we asked him to go through the motions of an election. After murder of an extremely popular, non-threatening opponent, and after one of most blatant and extreme examples of electoral fraud in modern history, we bribed Marcos out (comfy exile, immunity) to get him to leave voluntarily, rather than see his ass thrown out and "God knows what, but they won't be friendly" eventually take his place - or the fractioning of the country into smaller units on ethnic and religious lines, with the ever-persistent commies still around.
quote:
We pushed the military rulers of Haiti out.
|
 We supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc for decades, and once again, we only decided it was time for a change when their conduct had become so blatant and their opposition so strong that they would have ended up against a wall. Once again, our interest was in our strategic position, not a bunch of Haitian peasants.
quote:
We encouraged democratization in right wing regimes in south america. |
And in most of Latinamerica, including here in Mexico, that "democratization" is a joke. The only reason the US "pushed" it (I wasn't aware gently asking was pushing ) was because it was costing us more to deal with commie insurgencies than we were benefitting from the Thugs-R-US(A) approach. So we just urged the real powers (i.e. the privileged economic ones) to change from military thugocracy to token corrupt democracy.
quote:
Well i suppose every instance where we've pushed for democratic change in a friendly regime can be explained away as somehow fitting other strategic interests of ours. And contrasted with some support we gave for a dictatorship somewhere.
|
Exactly. You can't claim a moral high ground and claim to support freedom and democracy, etc., unless you support those things instead of oppression that would be more favorable to you. The irony is that had the US been a little less into the Thugs-R-US(A) United Fruit Company model of doing things, Castro would probably have never come around, nor Allende (or Pinochet), nor the fiascos in El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, etc.
quote:
Im not going to defend all our cold war era behavior. Even post 9/11, when many of us who hadnt realized it before, came to see that we have a Strategic Interest in democratization, there are aspects of our behvior that can be criticized - for example our support for the government of Uzbekistan, and our "constructive engagement" with Saudi Arabia. But to say that "The US has never given a rat's ass about the "freedom" of people forced to live under oppressive, dictatorial, pro-US regimes." is just over the top rhetoric, that doesnt recognize the subtleties and tradeoffs in a dangerous world.
|
You're obviously confusing me with a bleeding heart. Let me rephrase then - the US gets concerned when the oppressive pro-US regimes are on the verge of losing control, and the alternatives are more adverse to perceived US interests.
As far as subtleties and trade-offs, I recognize them just fine. I don't have a particular problem with empire, just with empire that claims some unique moral superiority behind it's attempts to expand influence and control.
quote:
and the following "What the US wants more than an end to "terrorism" is an end to resistance to US influence and the imposition or maintenance of US friendly governments, except whatever "resistance" is decided to be allowable under the political rules of our friendly, pro-US governments." is wrong.
I am old enough to have lived through the contra controversy.
|
Then you should remember the North-Poindexter controversy was about separation of powers and whether the Executive and Legislative branches were subverting each other, and to whom ultimate policy control belonged when foreign policy was an executive preroragtive but funding a legislative one.
And most of the original debate on supporting the Contras, aside from widely ignored bleeding heart liberals in Congress, was over whether the Contras were effective and had enough support, not over the "freedom" of the Nicaraguan people. It was strictly a cold war calculation: Los hermanos Ortega = Castro's *****es, therefor the USSR's *****es. so what do we do about them?
quote:
When will Iran have congressional hearings digging into support govt support for Hezbollah? When will the parliament of Syria cut off funding for Hamas? |
How those thugopolies conduct their policy isn't really relative to the moral syrup in which we package ours.
quote:
It also overlooks the changes in recent years. For example US aid to Columbia is conditional on cracking down on right wing paramilitaries, and the AUC is considered a terrorist group. |
The AUC should be considered a terrorist group. Any right wing enforcers dumb enough to openly give their organization a name and try to exist out of the shadows of plausible deniability absolutely can't be trusted. And US aid is "conditional" (with very few real checks, mind you" because to not make a fuss out of it being "conditional" would be more adverse to US interests in the region, where people have long memories.
quote:
So MtG, what do you think? Do you think the people who blew up the convoy in Gaza are really concerned about Guatamalan death squads? Do you think they really want democracy in Palestine, and are offended that we dont support it? Do you think they want an end to Israeli occupation? Why then attack US officials who were there either to hand out scholarships, or to monitor the road map peace process - at the request of the Palestinian authority? How does that serve to end occupation? |
I think they wanted to blow up American government representatives. The number of possible scenarios for who and why is pretty large, from diversion in Iraq, to opportunism, to undermining the PA in general, to Arafat undermining certain parties, and the list goes on and on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. the PA is not sovereign. One of the reasons given for it not yet having sovereignty, is its alleged support for terrorism. Refusing a US request to allow FBI investigators would hardly endear the US toward the notion of Pal sovereignty
|
The PA is not a sovereign nation. And note I didn't talk about Palestinian sovereignty, let alone PA sovereignty. The point is the US' lack of sovereignty - we can go in there in one of three ways - by force, which tends to mess up crime scene investigations.
Or we can go in with the invitation of whichever party is internationally recognized as having jurisdiction.
Or we can go in with the invitation of whoever we deem it is convenient to consider has the authority to grant us that permission.
Unfortunately, somebody's got sovereignty over that piece of ground, and it ain't us.
quote:
2. Lets take PA sovereignty as given. Very well. Allow Arafat the sovereign right to deny the US access for investigation. The US may then conclude that Arafat supported the attack. Does his soverienty prevent us from assuming that? The US may then allow Israel the sovereign right to respond to attacks on its territory, and to apply the Bush doctrine to Palestine. The Europeans may even be convinced that Arafat is responsible, and cease diplomatic and financial support. If I were Arafat, I would take that seriously. |
I'm not assuming that the PA is the sovereign authority. If I were Arafat, I'd argue in circles and try to delay and punt on the issue for long enough to make sure the crime scene was ****ed up. Unless I knew who did it, and I had a reason to want them to be fed to the US. Arafat may also be concerned with any apparent ass-kissing of US authority as undermining his hold on the PA and the Palestinians. There are lots of balls in play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm not assuming that the PA is the sovereign authority. |
well i cant see israel telling us we cant send FBI in. and i cant see the UN doing so, or Jordan. So i dont really see anyone other than arafat who both can and would invoke sovereignty to keep the FBI out. [/QUOTE]
quote:
If I were Arafat, I'd argue in circles and try to delay and punt on the issue for long enough to make sure the crime scene was ****ed up. Unless I knew who did it, and I had a reason to want them to be fed to the US. Arafat may also be concerned with any apparent ass-kissing of US authority as undermining his hold on the PA and the Palestinians. There are lots of balls in play. |
Ok, if youre arafat you argue in circles and try to punt till the scene is messed up. Fine. And everyone on gods green earth is going to know that whoever did it is someone youre trying to protect. Now most of the muslim world and half of europe and 20% of the US is going to say just fine. But 80% of the US, and 95% of Congress, and 100% of the administration and probably 50% of europe (higher in UK and Germany, lower in France) will all decide its time to wash their hands of you. Israel gets a free hand. I dont think this is a wise strategic move.
Nah, if you had any hand in it, youd better have your tracks covered ALREADY, so you can invite the FBI in right away. And if any people (like say Hamas) who I dont want the US to blame, but i dont absolutely control did it, i need to face the fact that my particular game with them is up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
I seem to recall the founding fathers of the United States were called terrorists. The Brits would have hanged them had they caught them. |
doesn't mean the other person is right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
From the Jerusalem Post:
quote:
The Islamic Jihad and Hamas were quick to disassociate themselves from the attack and claimed they were not involved. The Palestinian Resistance Committee in Gaza, an umbrella group comprised of all the Palestinian opposition groups later claimed responsibility for the attack. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
MTG
well first i seem to recall a diffferent 1980s than you do. I recall a vigourous debate over policy on central america, one in which issues of human rights, death squads, etc played prominent roles. ISTR that Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote a prominent article saying that we should distinguish between right wing authoritarian regimes and left wing totalitarian regimes, as the former were both less murderous and less permanent than the latter (poor lady wasnt terribly prescient). She wasnt writing in the abstract - her article was seen as an attack on important aspects of the Carter admin foreign policy - and the adoption of her point of view in the Reagan admin was a matter of fairly constant controversy - the subject matter of which was "we shouldnt be supporting these scum" for moralistic and/or long term self interest reasons (the two tended to get blended) versus "if we dont support them, the reds will come in, and they'll be even nastier, harder to get rid of, and hostile to us". With the fall of the Soviet block this argument tended to disappear, and the argument tended to be over whether we needed to concern ourselves with foreign matters at all.
Basically youre denying that Wilsonianism has ever had any real impact on US foreign policy. I think you mistate the history of that foreign policy in doing so.
In any case i was wrong to have replied to you in the first place. This was a double threadjacking. The thread was started to discuss the recent bombing in Gaza. Mr Horse decided to change the subject to US foreign policy, by quoting a leftie Aussie pol who said that "weve been living in a Mad max world cause of US policy" I very much doubt either the Aussie pol or Mr horse meant to indicate that weve been living in a mad max world since 1981, or 1945. I think they meant since George W Bush took office. Therefore i think they were referring specifically to Dubyas policies, not Reagans or Carters.
I think a detailed discussion of the US policy in central america in the 1980's belongs in another thread - i dont think it at all illuminates what caused the incident in Gaza, or what will likely result from it. Seems like we're all just hitting each others hot buttons, and generating more heat than light.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
ANALYSIS: UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK AGAINST US TARGETS IN THE GAZA STRIP AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Day to Day: October 15, 2003
Three Americans Killed in Gaza Strip Attack
ALEX CHADWICK, host:
From NPR News in Los Angeles and Slate magazine online, this is DAY TO DAY. I'm Alex Chadwick.
Coming up, there are signs of a break in the opposition at the UN to US policy in Iraq.
First, though, our lead comes out of the Gaza Strip. Three Americans were killed today when a remote-controlled bomb blew up their convoy and tore apart an armored van. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as an awful crime. The United States ordered all American citizens out of the Gaza Strip. Here to talk with us about this attack is NPR's Linda Gradstein in Jerusalem.
Linda, tell us, who are these Americans and why were they in the Gaza Strip?
LINDA GRADSTEIN reporting:
Well, the Americans were security men who were hired from a private company. They were not US government officials. They were part of a convoy of Americans who were traveling to Gaza to discuss granting study scholarships for Gaza Palestinians to come to study at American universities. And the explosion occurred as they were on their way. They had just crossed the Erez crossing point from Gaza to Israel, and the explosion occurred a few minutes after that, about a mile and a half from the crossing point in northern Gaza, as the convoy drove past a gas station.
CHADWICK: Now you've already determined, investigators have already determined this was a remote-controlled bomb, which suggests it targeted this American convoy rather than a kind of random landmine kind of thing.
GRADSTEIN: That's correct. A couple of reporters saw a gray wire going from the scene of the attack to a small sort of concrete building where apparently the bomb had been set up. And Israel radio reported that three months ago, a roadside bomb was detonated next to a similar American convoy traveling in the same area, but that there were no injuries in that attack.
CHADWICK: How common is it for US officials to be in this area? And, generally, what are they doing there?
GRADSTEIN: Well, US officials travel very frequently, I would say almost every day. I mean, I've, you know, been to Gaza. Whenever I've been to Gaza, I've seen American officials in a convoy. This one, by the way, was led by a Palestinian police car. You know, American officials, part of their job is meeting with Palestinian as well as Israeli officials. I'm sure there are some American officials coming into Gaza virtually every day. The convoy is clearly marked as a diplomatic convoy. The license plates have a CD license plate. They're a white license plate as opposed to an Israeli or a Palestinian license plate. So it's very clear who they are. And both American and Israeli security officials believe that this American convoy was targeted as an attack on Americans.
CHADWICK: And who would have been behind the attack, in the kind of early estimations, anyway?
GRADSTEIN: Well, that's exactly the question. I mean, Palestinian officials say that they intend to find out. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who have been behind dozens of suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis as well as several Americans in Israel, say that they were not involved in this attack. And Israeli officials and American officials say they really don't know who was behind it. But they guess that it is some militant group that is opposed to the United States' involvement in trying to push forward a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
CHADWICK: The FBI says it is going to go Gaza and join in the investigation. But how is it going to go, trying to figure out who might have done this?
GRADSTEIN: Well, I assume the FBI team will come and will meet with Israeli officials, will meet with Palestinian security officials, and will examine the scene and will try to come to whatever conclusions they can. Of course, you know, the United States has a fairly large presence at the embassy here. There's CIA officials. So, you know, it's a place that American diplomats know well and have been involved in for many years.
CHADWICK: I think it's fair to say that Americans are shocked at finding themselves targets of attacks here in the Gaza Strip. Should we really be shocked by this?
GRADSTEIN: Well, there has been a growing anti-American feeling among many Palestinians over the past three years. Many Palestinians believe that the United States is not carrying out a balanced policy, that the United States has not criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and has basically given him a free hand to do whatever he wanted. They're angry at American criticism of Yasser Arafat. So they feel that the American policy is tilted towards Israel. Palestinians feel that the United States has accepted the Israeli position that everything that they do in the West Bank and Gaza is defensive action for their security. So there's been growing anti-American feeling in the West Bank and Gaza, as there has been in much of he Arab world.
CHADWICK: NPR's Linda Gradstein in Jerusalem. Thank you, Linda.
GRADSTEIN: Thank you, Alex.
Copyright ©2003 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information, please contact NPR's Permissions Coordinator at (202) 513-2000.
This transcript was created by a contractor for NPR, and NPR has not verified its accuracy. For all NPR programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative version. To purchase an audiotape of this piece, please order online or call 1-877-NPR-TEXT.
|
http://www.npr.org/programs/day/tra....gradstein.html
It's becoming quite clear that they deliberately attacked Americans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
I heard that it was 200 kilo.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-10-2003 02:04
|