Keeping my mouth shut re Georgia
Bookworm on Aug 13 2008 at 9:17 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Russia
“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
You’ve probably noticed that I’ve said nothing about Russia invading Georgia. This is, in part, because the exigencies of the past week have deprived me of time to read in detail about it. I only know headlines and, since I have absolutely no background in the geography or the conflict, this means I’m abysmally ignorant.
The silence is also because, to the extent I have managed to grasp what’s going on out there, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion, or anything that I feel I want to voice personally despite the fact that so many others are saying the same thing. Yes, Putin is a totalitarian dictator, but we’ve known that about him for a long time, and many of us have just been sitting here waiting to see how is old KGB attitudes end up merging with his megalomaniac traits. Yes, this is all about oil. Yes, this represents a very dangerous trend, although it’s as unclear now as it was during the Cold War whether Russia has the ability to back up its aggressive initiatives. It’s easy to go in with the remaining guns from your former glory and squash a teeny little Republic. It’s harder to maintain any long campaigns. And yes, McCain showed leadership abilities, with Obama showing, first, ignorance (which is excusable in me, but not in him) and, second, the ability to follow McCain’s lead.
And yes, I’ve run out of echoing other, wiser people on the terrible tragedy, at the hands of a gross, bullying dictatorship, that is playing out in Georgia.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
134 Responses to “Keeping my mouth shut re Georgia”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In every war of aggression, the aggressor acts out the part of the aggrieved, complaining bitterly about the injustices done, and the fact that there was no remaining choice available. The true test is what occurs in the aftermath of the War.
You will be able to look at Iraq post-Bush, once this war is completely done, to judge the results of our War. I suspect you will see dramatic benefits. (This is all relevant ONLY to the extent that you consider the Iraq War to be a war of US aggression.)
There are many more relevant other wars of aggression where the aftermath is outrageously ugly. For all their bitter complaining, the aggressors had one goal: The rape and brutalization of a prey. In every case where their war of aggression succeeded, the attacked country was to pay bitterly in blood and tears for decades.
A side note that had me laughing: Germany agreed with Stalin to partition Eastern Europe and launched the Nazi invasion into Poland in 1939, stating bitterly that this was a defensive war against Poland and Britain and they had no choice. Poland executed a maneuver to send its best ships away to England for protection. How was France involved in this? To wit:
On August 30, the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing Operation Peking. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły announced the mobilization of Polish troops. However, he was pressured into revoking the order by the French, who apparently still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, failing to realize that the Germans were fully mobilized and concentrated at the Polish border.
Heh. The more things change the more they stay the same.
“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” —General George S. Patton
“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.” —Norman Schwartzkopf
“We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.” —Marge Simpson
“As far as I’m concerned, war always means failure.” —Jacques Chirac, President of France
“As far as France is concerned, you’re right.” —Rush Limbaugh
“The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee.” —Regis Philbin
An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French…. Raise both hands if you are French.
Q: Why do French naval ships have glass bottoms?
A: To see all their other ships.
A man askes his companion, “What’s the most common French expression”? His friend scratches his head, shrugs his shoulders and replies, “I give up!”
Q: Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?
A: So the Germans could march in the shade.
(Yes, I know, this is very ungrateful, considering we couldn’t have beat the British in 1776-1781 without the help of the French Navy… Just remember, they didn’t do it for us; We were a minor skirmish in their world war and splitting the Colonies from Great Britain was to France’s great advantage; so tell me again why I should owe gratitude?)
Here’s an interesting perspective…
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9073
Love the “French” lines…!
Not sure the French military deserves the bad name, but like soldiers everywhere, they’re not responsible for their politicians…!
Excellent link, suek! (and I know that the French military jokes are really about their long-standing feckless political leadership, but yes, what fun anyway!)
It’s hard to say how this plays out in the long run, not only for Georgia but for other small countries in the region.
A snarling Russia will provide a very interesting months-long national security debate between McCain and Obama. Should McCain be smart enough to take it on.
Obama will be in a box; the vast majority of his support – his far-left constituency – will not accept any worthwhile strong statements, and the rest of the American people won’t accept the spineless, craven, hopelessly weak tone of his initial remarks. It may get very interesting.
It all goes back to the advertisement Hillary Clinton ran: who do you want in WH answering the phone @ 3 AM?
It’s hard for me to imagine the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia……but we apparently bear some responsibility for the position we’re in. I’ve seen a couple of pieces that seem to establish pretty clearly that none of this was, or should have been, a surprise. We joined Europe in either ignoring, or not responding to, a whole series of Russian statements and actions, back when the stakes were low and the chances of avoiding this mess were higher.
Earl: read Spengler’s take on Georgia from Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag01.html
” Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:”in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.. . . “
I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. Afghanistan was also a coalition activity. This was not one-on-one imperialism, no matter how much people wish it was.
Hey Ozzie, people don’t use violence or threat of violence against each other in your nation, either. That is only allowed by the government, since the government has limitations put on them by the people.
The only one who is allowed to invade nations are nations like America. But you aren’t like America, Oz. You don’t follow a set of principles which you just won’t back down from. America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.
Btw, do not give the UN any legitimacy, for they are the source of much terror and crime in this world. They did not authorize the US invasion of Iraq and thank God for that.
America is not good or bad because the Un said so.
I dare say that you lack any belief you would be willing to defend if it took invading another country, Oz.
I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. — Book
Yes, and the U.N, didnt authorize war, the U.S was caught “bugging” Security Council Members and whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for. From the Baltimore Sun in 2004:
But the record shows that early last year, the United States brought the full force of its powerful economy to bear on prospective military allies, offering more than $4 billion in an unsuccessful attempt to gain the allegiance of Turkey and helping to negotiate Poland’s $3.5 billion purchase of 48 F-16 fighter planes from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Polish deal also included more than $6 billion in U.S. business investment that Lockheed promised to channel into Poland, an economic “offset” that caused Polish officials to call the purchase “the deal of the century.”
Of course , we wont know for YEARS the extent to which colaition members were bribed.
For an eye-opening account of the way things typically work, I suggest the book, Legacy of Ashes.
America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.- Ymar
Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.
The story Americans are told vs the truth that eventually emerges are always very different.
America is not good or bad because the Un said so- Ymar.
Well, Ymar. The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.
They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.
Georgia has been in the news for quite some time.
From 2002:
Deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces to the Caucasus state of Georgia would help enforce a Washington pipeline policy aimed at neutralizing Russian influence in oil-rich Central Asia. . . .
The Russian campaign served to maintain Russian control of all pipelines bringing oil and gas out of the Caspian basin. It seems clear that in the current decade the Bush administration is willing to send troops, from Georgia to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, to neutralize Russian influence. The United States has already stationed 1,000 troops in Uzbekistan, and 300 close to the Chinese border in Kyrgyzstan, with more scheduled to arrive. . .
Since the collapse in 1998 of California oil company Unocal’s efforts to establish a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, the focus of U.S. government strategy has been on a proposed gas pipeline — a project of the Pipeline Solutions Group, a U.S.-led consortium of oil companies — to be built across the Caspian, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Enron, with U.S. government money, conducted a feasibility study for this pipeline.
The backup of U.S. pipeline politics with military support began under President Clinton, but received a boost with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to the region last December. . ”
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=812
>>The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.>>
If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US?
Ozzie is doing the same old tired left-wing dance moves here. I see it over and over, among my very liberal friends.
They criticize the United States, sometimes for legitimate reasons. Then, when confronted by behaviors of other countries that is far, far worse than our behavior, they become silent, or they amp up their criticisms of the USA.
When you ask them why, they offer this: “I am only interested in the behavior of my own country. I cannot control the behavior of other countries. Besides, the behavior of other countries should not be used as an excuse for my country’s behavior.”
Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”
This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.
Yes, the Unocal dealings are shifty and not up to our ideals. However, in the meantime, China is sponsoring the Darfur genocide solely for its own long-term oil interests. You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special?
In reality, he should be criticizing the USA and China, both. He is ethically required to identify China as, by far, with no real comparison, the worst of the two. Then perhaps a lament on how difficult it is to change China would be in order; and then, finally, a resolution to AT LEAST stop the lesser infractions by the USA, as something that he can accomplish. In this way he would acknowledge the truth of world affairs while doing what he could to fix our own mistakes.
But no. The Ozzies of the world simply heap abuse on the USA and remain completely silent about the worse activities of others.
- Your son gets into a fight at school and breaks another boy’s arm.
- Your neighbor’s son gets into a fight at school and knifes the other boy repeatedly, who then is in emergency care for a week.
- Ozzie, the principal, suspends your son and puts him in alternative school, while never punishing the other boy. On the local news, he spends five minutes haranguing your son and your parenting, remaining silent about the other boy.
- Why does he do this? Because you LISTEN and are willing to take action, while the neighbor parent refuses to listen to him, threatens to sue, ignores him and belittles him. Ozzie would rather attack you.
Perhaps my analogy is unfair, but I find it instructive. It’s not fair for me to identify Ozzie so closely with this hypothetical principal, because in truth the principal is exhibiting extreme ethical cowardice. But to me, that is the nature of these repeated attacks on the USA that do not also involve a willingness to criticize others AND to identify which behaviors are worse.
If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US? – suek
My problem isnt with the U.S. It’s with the propaganda. And the people who blindly believe and/or peddle it.
I accept that the U.S and Russia are in a battle over control of natural resources.
I don’t accept the notion that the U.S is the world’s sole fireman ready to put out fires.
A couple favortie quotes:
“The enormous gap between what U.S. leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.” — Michael Parenti
The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know. ~ Harry S Truman
You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special? – Mike
Actually, no. I don’t blame the U.S for Darfur. I have not read anything that suggests that the U.S is behind the genocide there.
And you’ll not hear me defending China nor Russia either.
I’m not criticizing Unocal’s dealings, either. It’s the same ‘ol, same ‘ol, as far as I can see.
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
From the Chicago Tribune in March, 2002:
“The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.
For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.
In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers.”
This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.- Mike
I love the country. But I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis, which Democrats condone under Democratic presidents and Republicans condone under Republican presidents and it all comes down to some “Left vs Right’ nonsense when the lies continue regardless which part holds power.
The history of what REALLY happened vs what Americans were told was happening is always fascinating/amazing/scary to me.
I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)
But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.
Had to throw this into the mix. Language warning.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/270650.php#270650
>>I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis>>
Governments lie. _All_ governments. Is it bad? I don’t know…there are people out there who want to hurt us. Lying is a form of camoflage – a form of protection from attackers. But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people – the enemy _listens_, you know.
Add to that the fact that there are people in government who have their own secret agendas…and ones that they may succeed in accomplishing regardless of the good of the country because they have acquired the power and means to do so. In spite of your preference for no evaluation of “good and bad”, there _are_ good and bad people. And the government is made up of people – good and bad. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
What you want is perfect people….guess what…they don’t exist.
But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people – the enemy _listens_, you know.- Suek
I’d like for the American government to stop doing horrendous things and then lying about it, yes.
And I’d like for the American people to stop being so damn gullible.
But that’s not going to happen.
At least for now, Americans who WANT to know what happened in 1953 or 1963 or 1973 can find out. Most dont want to, though. And they dont believe you if you try to tell them about this coup or that coup and don’t believe that it affects anything today.
There are no perfect people. But there are consequences for actions. And the sins of the father will be visited upon the children. Some children will recite happy, fluffy stories and deem it the truth, while others will try to find the actual truth.
As for Georgia? That will take a while.
In the meantime, those of us who were reading about Unocal and pipelines and the potential for friction between the U.S and Russia were laughed at by those who prefered to believe that Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw beauty in his soul.
I was surprised to read this as I thought the issue of Kosovo had been settled:
This does add some perspective to the situation in Georgia. As much as the left would like to use Iraq as a defense for Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the analogy is closer to our support of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.
I think we do know that Russia’s move into Georgia was planned well in advance of the latest “oppression” of the Ossetians by Georgia.
Here is an interesting article written in 2006 that might add context.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-caucasus/south_ossetia_4100.jsp
Seems like Russian meddling to me.
But at the core it seems we’re struggling to develop a coherent justification for the use of force whether it be the US in Iraq, or Russia in Georgia, or NATO in Serbia. I’ve read here and at other blogs a defense or refutation of these justifications. We seem to be uneasy endorsing the concept that strategic power and self interest is all that is necessary. We wish for a more moral philosophical argument, when there may be none. These questions will always be colored by our core beliefs.
The articles that Ozzie cites includes this statement: “These elites increase oppression while flaunting their Mercedes” referring to the US corporate investments. Well, one man’s flaunting is another man’s reward for entrepreneurship.
We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism. One is “good” and the other “evil” depending on core belief.
Ozzie cites Michael Parenti and references the New America Media website.
Who is Michael Parenti? According to his web site…
He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts.
“Michael Parenti is a towering prophetic voice in American life. We need him now more than ever.” — Cornel West
“Here at home and throughout the world people are fighting back against the forces of wealth, privilege, and militarism — some because they have no choice, others because they would choose no other course but the one that leads to peace and justice.” — Michael Parenti
Book by Michael Parenti:
Democracy For The Few, 8th Ed.
DEMOCRACY FOR THE FEW is a penetrating interpretation of the American political system. It focuses both on the formal institutions of government as well as the broad configurations of power, wealth, and class: how the political system is used and controlled, for whose benefit and at whose cost. A comprehensive and powerful opus for student and layperson alike.
From an article– The Stolen Presidential Elections by Michael Parenti
You will only cite Michael Parenti as an authority if you believe that Bush stole the election from both Gore and Kerry and that American democracy is only an illusion.
From Pipeline Politics – Oil Behind Plan for U.S. Troops in Georgia, 2002
We seem to be headed down a road that may lead to a balkanization of most countries, absent superior strategic power. If, in fact, any set of people occupying a particular location, can declare independence then the North’s action against the South was illegal 150 years ago and at some point in the future, the Southwest will declare it’s independence from the US and allegiance to the home country. I think we can guess what side Ozzie will be on.
You can declare independence, but you better have the power to enforce it.
By the way, Ozzie, was NATO justified in the war against Serbia?
We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism.” — Brian E.
Ah. But that’s not what’s happening between Georgia, Russia and the U.S. Russia is embracing capitalism, too
From the Christian Science Monitor, in 2002:
Terror war and oil expand US sphere of influence
GIs build bases on Russia’s energy-rich flank
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
“. . . Firmly in the Russian and later Soviet sphere of influence since Napoleon’s day, these strategic regions, along with their Middle Eastern ramparts to the south, are now home to 60,000 American troops.
Some of these soldiers are building what appear to be long-term bases at remote Central Asian outposts, raising critical questions about America’s future role.
One aim is the containment of Islamic extremism, a goal shared by Russia on its vulnerable southern flank. Looking to challenge OPEC leader Saudi Arabia in the oil markets, Russia is also worried about protecting its growing economic interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which are crisscrossed by oil and gas pipelines – and potentially lucrative new routes.
But the new nearness of America is triggering heated debate in Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin, by permitting US deployments, is being widely blamed for “losing” Central Asia and succumbing to a new American imperialism.. . .
“The Russians have every reason to be worried” about US intentions in their “soft underbelly,” says Thomas Stauffer, an energy strategist and former Harvard professor in Washington. “The only geopolitical logic I can see [to long-term US moves],” Stauffer adds, “is that we want to get a certain amount of space on the checkerboard, with which we can negotiate with the Russians.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html
From Ozzie’s link:
This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed.
“While the US may have grand imperial designs” is I would submit engaging in fantasy or wishful thinking, depending on one’s worldview.
I can accept the theory that our strategic interests include the free flow of oil to world markets. Here our interests align with most of the industrialized world. We’ve seen from the recent oil price spike, that there is an oil price that would trigger real oil wars and the potential collapse of the world economy. Unfortunately the US would not be immune to that collapse.
I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow. A scenario in which Saudi oil production is curtailed or a host of lesser catastrophe’s occur requires our proactive approach to potential new sources, or stabilizing other potential disruptions.
I would argue that oil company interests and our national security interests are aligned and am not overly concerned that Exxon may profit from this free flow of oil. We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.
I read theories alluding to “payback” by the Russians for our intervention in Serbia, but I think the analysis that puts the invasion of Georgia more as an example to others that desire to tack West as probably correct.
While the world defends its actions against Serbia raised in the International Court of Justice, it will be used to justify Russian actions to stop the genocide by Georgia against the hapless Ossetians in some minds (whether or not this occurred).
Will it lead to the coercian of the West to accept Russian authority in South Ossetia and possibly Georgia?
This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed. — Brian
And I’d argue that primary objectives usually remain hidden for decades.
“I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow.. . . We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.
” — Brian
Yes, We’ve seen it that way since 1953 or so, when we waged our first coup to insure that America and Britian controlled the flow of oil in Iran. Honestly, if you get a chance to pick up “Legacy of Ashes” and you’ll also see how populations had to be supressed and killed to insure American supremacy.
(If people are stupid enough to be born near oil, then they should expect to be maimed and killed, no?)
In Dafur, China is guilty, so it’s acceptable to be horrified at that’s happening there.
Thanks for the green light on Darfur. I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.
I’m not here to defend every action of the US in history, but I believe your scenario misses a key point. The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it. Mosadeq promoted the nationalization of the Oil Industry from Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and while we can argue that they were offered a reasonable settlement, it would have a ripple effect in other countries.
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/nazis1/index.htm
The fact that the Shah was no improvement is regrettable.
I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.- Zhombre
Well, Zhombre. if you tell people you are horrified by American-led coups in Iran in 1953 or in Iraq in 1963 or in Chile in 1973, some get offensive.
Atrocities , shmytrocities….
The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it.- Brian
It was sold to Eisnenhower that way, tis true.
But the declassified documents are pretty damning.
The U.S. government is populated by some pretty scary folks.
Another interesting tidbit from the Eisenhower era:
The president noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him, “we should do what was necessary even if the result was to change the American way of life. We could lick the whole world… if we were willing to adopt the system of Adolph Hitler.” — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as quoted in the National Security Council declassified minutes of a meeting in Fall 1953, and as published in “Legacy of Ashes – The History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner, page 75.
Boy, aren’t we glad Eisenhower didn’t take him up on the offer.
I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.
Are you claiming that America and the former Soviet Union are morally equivalent?
http://www.fortfreedom.org/h10.htm
]]]] Twentieth Century Killed, by Cause [[[[[[[
CAUSE TOTALS AVERAGES
(in millions) (per 100,000 population)
—————-
Government 119.4 349
Communist 95.2 477
Other non-free 20.3 495
Partially free 3.1 48
Free 0.8 22
—————-
War 35.7 22
International 29.7 17
Civil 6.0 26
—————-
Using these conservative estimates, I would take my chances siding with American interests, and I have no problem defending its aims, warts and all. 95 million deaths caused by Communist governments, 800,000 by Free governments.
Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens.
What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.
Oz is claiming that the US and the Soviets are both corrupted by power and like Republicans and Democrats, aren’t really different or going anywhere positive.
What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.
Why would evil freely allow the good to destroy their plans? They have saboteurs ready to wreck it. Both inside and outside Western civilization.
They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.
Which is rather the problem. A world of moral equivalency or a viewpoint that does not realize and accept that people see their actions as good and other people’s actions as evil, thus requiring an ethical system, not just a moral one, is a world view that cannot produce any human progress.
Where will you go by talking about issues independent of the good it will do people and the harm it will cause?
The real issue has always been, will you back Georgia or will you back Russia, Oz. Or will you just sit on the sidelines and try to be neutral.
whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for
See, you turned an alliance of mutual interests into some kind of mercenary or monetary exchange, like citizens, individuals, mobsters, and gang members do all the time in the world.
Money is part of the Great Games played by the Great Powers, but what is at stake is life and liberty, not money.
Georgians know this very well by now, but you don’t. And there’s a reason for that.
Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.
See, you have no idea or intention of making the world a better place or working with those who have the power to do so to use it wisely and constructively. All you want to do is to try to hamstring the efforts of those actually making an attempt.
Oz’s position is also rather schizophrenic in some cases. The US is supposed to be an exploiter, but then suddenly we’re bribing nations to make them our allies.
Man, the US Imperialism is so stingy they will exploit other people’s resources by giving them money and military hardware.
This is what happens when you get that morally relativistic and nihilist viewpoint going on.
Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens. – Brian
And I’m telling you that we didnt. In fact, in many cases, we propped up brutal dictatorships.
This book takes a even-handed, just-the-facts approach, http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm though the author’s bias shines though occassionally (For example, his distaste for the Kennedys makes it seem as if JFK approved Operation Northwoods, when, in fact, though all Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan to kill Americans and blame Cuba, the Kennedy administration said No No No).
He also just briefly mentions the Dr. Frank Olson case, without addressing any of the latest findings.
I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.- Brian
My point is that believing in warm and fuzzy mythology is dangerous. And there is often a vast difference between what we’re told and what is actually occurring.
Here’s another interesting disclosure, from the Kennedy era:
In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
>>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>
That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong.
>>The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff>>
Of course. The military – or whoever the appropriate body is – is given a specific task. Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. Somehow. After the plans are devised, the decision makers are the ones who decide. That’s _their_ job. There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form – it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.
I’m hustling off to another carpool in a minute, so I just want to address one point. It’s true that the US (especially acting through the CIA), got into bed with or fomented some horrible dictatorships. However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world.
Vast wars such as the Cold War, which take place globally and over decades, are always going to result in bad decisions and regrettable allies. However, one fights the wars one has and, just as in the heat of battle in a hot war, during the long-drawn out battles of the cold war, one makes uneasy but necessary alliances, and one makes mistakes.
>>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>
That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong. – suek
All Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan, Suek. It was A-OK with them, but not with McNamarra.
“Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. ” -suek
Yes, the plan was to find a reason to go to war with Cuba.
Seymour Hersh just reported on Bush Adminstration “Ideas” to provoke war with Iran. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29BtzfSz0o
Yet, many Americans still believe that the U.S. seeks to avoid war at all cost, based only upon the myths they’ve been told since birth.
You can’t fight that kind of indoctrination… It’s kind of like trying to reason with someone who believes that the Kennedy era was “Camelot.”
“There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form – it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.” — suek
The history of ideas that have been implemented has been similarly immoral and/or amoral.
You can argue that it doesn’t matter, but the CIA concept of blowback suggests otherwise.
And then there’s the question of where God fits in all of this:
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.. . . ” Thomas Jefferson
“Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions.”– Ulysses S. Grant
However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world — Bookworm
Communism was often given as the reason, Bookworm, but the underlying motivation was often the desire to control a nation’s natural resources. The 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq is a prime example. After Truman wisely turned them down, the Brits sold the coup to Eisenhower using the fight against Communism as the reason, but oil was the prime motivation.
The overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala is another example. The United Fruit Company and the Dulles Brothes benefitted, though the peope of Guatemala certainly did not. As CIA associate Jack Peuifoy put it, “”I have come to Guatemala to use the big stick. I am definitely convinced that if the President (Arbenz) is not a communist, he will certainly do until one comes along.”
Again…
So what’s your point?
Again…
So what’s your point?
- suek
My point is the Truth is important, though it often takes years to decipher.
Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.
“If the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win…. The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention–the risk to American medical students there–was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will.” — Irving Kristol, The Fettered Presidency,1989
More on the 1953 Iranian coup:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.
The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.
We were at war with communism, and war is a messy business. Whether the adventure produced a more virulent strain of Islamic radicalism culminating in the ’79 coup is speculation. Would the Mullahs been more moderate had the Shah been less repressive or was the Shah repressive because of the radical nature of the mullahs is also speculation.
What is evident that times change and attitudes change. Had today’s attitudes been projected during WWII, we would not have defeated the Nazis. The losses during D-day would have been unacceptable, the bombing of Dresden would have brought up calls for senate hearings, civilian losses in the slog to Berlin would have prompted cries of war crimes.
We don’t fight wars in the same way today, but WWII was not fought with the tactics of WWI.
When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.
The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.- Brian
Yes, I know. That doesnt make it the truth, however.
From an interview with the author of “All the Shah’s Men,” another book that deals with the 1953 coup:
” The British agent who came to Washington to present the coup plan to Eisenhower’s team, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, wrote afterward that he knew the Americans would not respond to an appeal based on Britain’s desire to regain its oil company. He decided instead to argue that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward communism. This argument was patently false, but Woodhouse sensed it would move John Foster Dulles and the rest of the Eisenhower administration into action. He was right.”
Truman saw Mossadegh as a buffer against communism. Go figure.
I suggest you read “All the Shah’s Men,” but in the meantime, here’s more from that interview:
Question: Let’s start with history. In 1953 the Eisenhower administration backed a coup against the elected leader of Iran, a man named Mossadegh, who had sought to nationalize the country’s oil industry. The British wanted to overthrow him to save their control over Iran’s oil. But why did the United States become involved? In your book you seem to argue that Ike was conned into helping the British out.
Answer: The idea that Mossadegh should be overthrown originated with the British. They were apoplectic at the prospect of losing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which Mossadegh’s government had nationalized with the unanimous approval of the Iranian parliament. Their efforts to carry out a coup, however, were disrupted when Mossadegh learned of their plan and responded by shutting the British embassy and expelling all British diplomats from Iran. Among these diplomats were the secret agents who had been assigned to carry out the coup. That left the British with no way to depose Mossadegh. Prime Minister Churchill tried to persuade President Truman to carry out the coup as a favor to the British, but Truman refused. Only after Eisenhower came into office did the United States change its mind.”
As I stated before, Woodhouse later wrote that he knew that Eisenhower would respond much the same way that Truman did, so he switched the sales pitch to the “patently false” argument that Iran was gonna go communist..
I was reading a book about the 1960s, a decade I watched from the sidelines, as I was just a small child, and was reminded that so much of what’s wrong with Africa nowadays was a result of British policies, that America blindly followed for Cold War reasons. That is, Britain set the agenda for economic or imperial benefit, and America blithely and thoughtlessly followed along because it saw advantages to its position vis a vis Russia. Certainly all those 60s and 70s chickens are coming home to roost, but it still doesn’t mean we’ve lost the right to defend ourselves. So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.
More on the 1953 Iranian coup- Brian
If you go to minute 5 or so in this clip, the coups in Iran and Guatemala are discussed. It’s interesting stuff:
So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.- Book
People here have expressed concern about what might occur should Obama win the presidency. If I remember correctly, someone worried about detention camps, with U.S. citizens being rounded, but those plans have been around for decades, with Kellogg, Brown and Root currently winning the contracts to build emergency camps, if need be. Under LBJ, we had Operation Garden Plot and under Reagan, we had Rex 84, and those provisonal plans remain in place.
Ron Suskind’s latest book says that the Bush adminstration knew there weren’t WMD, which confirms what former CIA agent Ray McGovern was saying all along. Hell, George H. W Bush hired a PR company to sell the first Gulf War, and false stories about babies being thrown out of incubators and forged satelite photographs helped convince Congress.
And Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney et al discussed plans to build “Iranian” boats and shoot at Americans as a means to go to war with Iran. Which sounds a lot like Operation Northwoods, if you ask me.
What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.
We Americans should always be wary of the “official story” but for some reason, Democrats are perfectly fine with bad behavior from Democratic presidents and Republicans condone bad behavior from Republicans.
What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.
Like I said before, Book. It doesn’t really matter to Oz whether Russia gobbles up Georgia or the US takes over Afghanistan/Iraq.
Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Seymour Hersh is part of the government, for he has decided policy without even being elected.
It’s when you start talking about the government and how you have a superior perspective that your nihilism and refusal to believe in “mythologies” start breaking down into its constituent components.
Ozzie,
I watched the Bill Moyers “The Secret Government” piece and his account of Iran is at odds with other accounts that I provided, which frankly have more credibility.
I noticed the related videos–
“Visual Proof that Illuminati Bloodlines Control the Planet” or “UFO’s – The Secret Government”, or how about “CFR – The Secret Government”.
I like the last one.
And to your allegation that the WH forged a letter about AQ and Iraq:
I know, I know, Tenet is part of the cabal so he can’t possibly be telling the truth.
It should be pretty easy to produce Habbush. He must have burned through the $5 mil in hush money. I’m sure George Soros would ante up a few million more to back up Suskind’s story.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are so much fun. Careful analysis, giving statements the benefit of the doubt when prudent, and resisting the urge to assume the worst motives are not nearly so, well, fun.
I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.
I’d like to give Ozzie some partial credit. My post #14 claimed:
Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”
Ozzie was quite honest in replying in #16:
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:
I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)
But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.
Get it? Again, a specific comment relating to the west, and then a very, very short, utterly generic criticism of China as being “far worse”. But you will notice that Ozzie never lists even one detail of corroborating evidence concerning any other country. All he has is a vast listing of the sins of America, as presented by the Left.
All that would be fine. Except that the result of such an obsessive focus on the ends and means of your own country is that your foreign policy inevitably becomes “Blame America First”. From Ace Of Spades we get this commentary:
My favorite by far was the response of Armando Llorens, coblogger at Talkleft, who wrote:
We are ruled by lunatics. I can think of no good reason for the United States to have a missile defense system in Poland, EXCEPT to provoke Russia. To ANNOUNCE such a deal NOW, given the situation in the Caucasus, is simply madness.
At least he was able to puzzle out the significance of the deal.
This kind of analysis is in fact the inevitable result of Ozzie’s 100% focus on the Sins of America, while ignoring the Sins of Everyone Else.
- The only purpose is to “provoke Russia”. Not to “respond to Russian aggression”. It would be wrong, you see, for us to respond. Also, a response can be defended. A “provocation” is by definition completely unwarranted and is an initial, opening act of aggression. On the left, we are doing the provoking. Russia is just being… I suppose, innocent and blameless.
- You also have to love the usual refusal to assign blame or be specific. Note that the crisis is referred to solely as “the situation in the Caucasus”. As always, note how careful Leftist writers are to never assign blame to the Russians. Nor even to ever identify exactly what it is the Russians did.
What Ozzie does with his obsessive focus solely on the Sins Of America would be humorous, and not worth bringing up, if it wasn’t for this inevitable and dangerous resulting foreign policy approach.
Finally it’s worth noting that – as we’ve all pointed out in the past, many times – the same kind of Leftist blindness applies to Israel, the Palestinians; the entire Middle East. And the resulting Middle East foreign policy on the left is similarly an outrage.
Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. Then he’d conclude with,
“And, yes, Iran is being worse in demanding the genocide, complete and total murder, of all Israelis.” Actually, I’m being kind. That took me seventeen words. After ten thousand words damning the Israelis, I bet Ozzie would contain his criticisms of others to no more than ten words.
I noticed the related videos– Brian
Yeah. I noticed them , too. Many of them made me laugh.. But Bill Moyers can’t really help who his show gets lumped with on YouTube, can he?
“I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.” – Brian
All sorts of theories swirl around the Kennedy assassination, but they’re only theories. But only 3 in 10 Americans believe that Oswald acted alone.
The book I’m reading shows that government officials didnt buy the “Oswald as lone gunman,” theory, either. Many thought that the Kennedys’ plans to kiill Castro were turned on JFK .
I’d never venture to guess into who and or what was involved, but I stumbled across an interesting tidbit while reading “Legacy of Ashes.” According to the author, LBJ thought that JFK’s murder was divine retribution for Kennedy’s role in the assassination of President Diem.
“If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. . ” — Mike
Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.
Truman said “the only thing new is the history you dont know,” and though I lived through the 60s and 70s, finding out what was happening behind the scenes, as opposed to what we were told was happening, is FASCINATING to me.
Actually, all of the CIA’s history is pretty interesting.
“Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. — Mike
Um, and this is based on what?
Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.
This is why it is so important that the arguments that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.
Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).
Yes, Britain was not willing to accept the payment offered by Moseddeq for it’s investment in Iran’s oil infrastructure and expertise, or future royalties subsequent to the nationalization, but that is justifiable. Would an equitable settlement been obtainable? Don’t know, because that becomes speculation. But a fact is a negotiating team was sent to Tehran with a proposal that recognized the principle of nationalization but called for the AIOC to market Iran’s oil on a 50-50 profit sharing basis. This proposal was rejected by Mosaddeq in June 1951.
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong on the face of it.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.
This is why it is so important that the argument that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.
Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).
This is a must-read analysis:
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
This is a must-read analysis:
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.
Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.
So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.
You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.
Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.
Oz doesn’t have any particular morality or ethical system he considers very true or right, so it doesn’t really matter, now does it.
If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:
The thing about nihilism is not that it particularly favors a certain viewpoint or what not, but that it hates nations and countries that actually have beliefs that they will fight for. Since nihilism believes that all these causes or what not are false, fake, and not worth it, nihilism believes that to prevent bloodshed and to remake the world in their image, they have to prevent people from believing in things.
When people have belief in something, they are willing to kill and die for those beliefs.
I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!
So Oz, a follower of nihilism and ultimate entropy, thus must take down sources of belief, and there is no greater belief for people to have faith in than the liberty coming from America.
It’s not about preventing bad actions or what not. It may be about preventing wars, in that if nobody believes anything, nobody will kill anybody over anything. But all of them are false, nihilism has no justifications for itself, even though it tries to make stuff up.
It is just this instinct for ultimate entropy, nothing else.
Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.
Here’s the difference, Oz, in case you hadn’t noticed by now.
Some people want to make the world a better place, and often their methods are mutually exclusive with each other. Some prefer totalitarian security and some prefer liberty without security. Others prefer a more balanced approach.
You, are only interested in history because of the entertainment value of seeing people suffer. You have no intention of changing things for the better. You have no belief that it can even be changed for the better.
That is the difference in attitude and the difference in belief which will forever separate you from those other classical liberals interested in American and world history.
You find entertainment value and glee momentums, in fashions short or long, in seeing good men fall and the weak crushed by the strong who are never held to account. Batman The Dark Knight is only the most recent example you have given of such sentiments, but it is not the only one.
All you ever focus on is how the strong, the mighty, and the just, like the US, can fall and destroy itself via chaos, entropy, or what not. It is what you are interested in.
But others like me, are not interested in studying entropy to create more of it.
BrianE, there is nothing you can say or do that will convince a person to re-arrange or reject his fundamental philosophical axioms.
That is true whether for American patriots and Russian patriots, or for nihilists and moral relativists.
All humans believe in things, even if they think they don’t believe in mythologies; they just believe in the truth, which is the history of America’s hidden government moments of human despair.
In post 54, the quote should begin in the second paragraph from the source I cited. The first paragraph is my take on it.
And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie.
You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken- Brian
Each president inherits the covert actions of the previous president, Brian.
Read this book and we’ll compare notes.
http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm
As of now, I only have you telling me wrong, based on I’m not sure what, and others ascribing motivations, actions, and philosophies that make me realize why it’s probably better NOT to discuss anything of substance on the Internet.
But as for the continutation of covert actions from president to president. . . .
I’m only up to Carter and he seems to be the only president who tried to alter the course of the CIA, with devestating results to morale.
But, for me, it’ssimply fascinating to read the factual record of what really occured behind the scenes, and see how History unfolded.
Another interesting tidbit:
Esinehower thought the best defense against Communism in the Middle East would be to sell the struggle as an Islamic Jihad. “We should be everything possible to stress the holy war aspect,” he said..
“And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie” . . Brian
Ymar knows all and sees all, Brian.
But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no. – Brian
Theodore Roosevelt said that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people,” but Bill Moyers coined the term to describe America after the National Secirity Act of 1947 came into play. As he put it the Secret Government is “an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. . ”
Once again, I’d suggest you find a reputable book regarding America’s hidden history and read it.
And yes, at times, the CIA lied to presidents, such as during Operation Paperclip when they smuggled 700 or so Nazis into the country, including Klaus Barbie. (Operation Paperclip eventually spawned more notorious programs like Operation ARTICHOKE (extreme interrogation and torture) and MK-ULTRA (mind control).
Another interesting tidbit:
Ali Abu Hassan, the PLO terrorist reponsible for the murder of the Israeli
athletes during the 1972 Olympics became one of the CIA’s most reliable sources.
We dont negotiate with terroirists? Dig a little and you’ll see how ridiculous that statement is.
American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No!- Brian E.
There was a time in U.S history when War profiteering was regarded as a bad thing.
In fact, Franklin D Roosevelt said he didn’t “want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of [World War II],” and Henry A. Wallace, one of his vice presidents, wrote an op-ed decrying Americans who were making $$ from the war.
Ah, but everything old is new again and neither party is immune.
For your consideration, some more interesting history:
1937: A small company named Brown & Root (which will later become a division of Halliburton) calls upon Lyndon Johnson to procure $10 million in federal funding for the Mansfield Damn project. The freshman congressman eventually delivers the necessary authorization and funding for the project, which becomes the cornerstone of Brown and Root’s financial empire. In turn, Herman Brown finances Johnson’s political rise. “It was a totally corrupt relationship and it benefited both of them enormously. Brown & Root got rich, and Johnson got power and riches,” LBJ biographer Ronnie Dugger later notes, adding that Johnson “wouldn’t have been in the running without Brown & Root’s money and airplanes.”
1942: The New York Tribune features a front page story entitled “Hitler’s Angel has $3 million in US bank,” referring to Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen and his ties to Union Banking Corporation. Later that year, Union Bank official Prescott Bush, George W. Bush’s grandfather, is charged with “Running Nazi front groups in the United States.”
1944: Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace writes an Op-ed , discussing war profiteers who are “ruthless” in their “use of deceit or violence” to gain money and power — pointing to those who “hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends.” Newly discovered government documents prove that Prescott Bush’s ties to the Nazis continued until as late as 1951, and that he and his cohorts “routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.”
1961: President Eisenhower delivers his farewell address, warning of the military/industrial complex and the potential for a “disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips later chronicles how Bush dynasty founders George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were “present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex, in which the Bush family has been enmeshed ever since.”
1963: Lyndon Johnson takes office and Republicans in Congress soon wonder if Brown & Root’s new government contacts aren’t connected to its political contributions to the new president. The company eventually becomes part of a consortium which wins a $380 million contract to build bases, hospitals and airports for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. During America’s War on Terror, the Halliburton subsidiary has similar luck in Afghanistan and Iraq.
1967: The General Accounting Office faults “Vietnam Builders” Brown & Root for accounting lapses; protesters target Brown & Root as a symbol of the “military-industrial complex.” Decades later, historians cite parallels between Halliburton’s hefty Iraq contracts and Vietnam-era controversies, including “allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering.” In 2004, former Army Corps of Engineers contract officer Bunnatine Greenhouse charges that the Pentagon is improperly awarding no-bid contracts to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, which is already under investigation for overcharging the government.
Sept. 11, 2001: The Carlyle Group holds its annual investor conference in Washington, DC. Former Secretary of State James Baker and Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s brother, are in attendance. “The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington’s strange affair with Saudi Arabia,” author Robert Baer later writes. Further evidence of this “strange affair” surfaces following the 9/11 attacks. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, when the nation’s airspace is restricted, the White House allows airplanes to pick up Saudi VIPS, including members of the bin Laden family. And when victims’ families file a $1 trillion law suit against the Saudi royal family, James Baker’s law firm represents the Saudis.
From the Chicago Tribune, 2002:
Pipeline Politics Taint US War By Salim Muwakkil
Chicago Tribune
March 18, 2002
“. . . The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.
For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.
In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers. “
Ozzie is at least honest about his preferences. I don’t accuse Oz of trying to hide himself or what not. Some people have shame about their nihilistic beliefs or philosophies, but Oz doesn’t particularly care one way or another.
You can respect him for the level of fervent belief he holds in his philosophies.
But you can’t respect his actual beliefs, for they are tortuous and bad.
Book is right that while many Leftists and ideologues will try to hide their preferences and beliefs beneath sarcasm and agent provocateur actions, Oz won’t do that.
And I show my respect for that by not debating and arguing the actual research vs facts that Ozzie has mentioned.
For if he will cut to the chase and make no bones about his philosophies, I will not try to cover up my reactions to his beliefs with factual arguments or what not. They would be a waste of time for both of us.
BrianE, that does not mean I think your efforts are a waste. If you benefit in some fashion from researching, reading, and mentally exercising on such matters, then good for you. At one time, I also needed to delve into the histories just to check up on what the Left were claiming.
Oz,
You are probably annoyed by people calling you a Leftist or saying you have Leftist beliefs or belong to a Leftist group or what not. You think yourself on the fence, neutral, or in some cases an equal opportunity offender.
When I say the “Left”, I do not mean a particular political persuasion nor do I mean a particular ideological persuasion either. I mean it in the sense that they are an army, an army composed of many allies and alliances and different factions. The Democrats are part of the Left. But the Left does not consist solely of Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, or what not.
My field of focus are in the areas of propaganda, war, psychology, and violence.
To a regular person, who may be interested in normal things like politics, one might say, when they say “Left” or “Leftist”, they can only mean as much as their limited horizons allow them to mean. But I see deeper into such things.
But I still doubt you actually accept the totality of what it means in terms of introspection, Oz, that your philosophies impact upon.
z
There’s a comment that is being askismet, Book, on this thread. Please choose one copy of the comment to authorize.
Thanks.
“You can respect him for the level of fervent belief he holds in his philosophies. . ”
“But I see deeper into such things.”- Ymar
I know you THINK you do, Ymar, and I find it very entertaining. But, alas, you can’t even get my gender right.
Ozzie,
The point I’ve been trying to make using the one example of the CIA covert operations in Iran, is that your conclusions (or those of the author’s) that the real reason we deposed Mossedeq was for oil is debatable.
Please read this short article and tell me if it is consistent with the “Legacy of Ashes” account.
http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html
Using this scholarship the author reached this conclusion to the point you were making:
This is what the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence had to say:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no3/legacy-of-ashes-the-history-of-cia.html
The point I’ve been trying to make using the one example of the CIA covert operations in Iran, is that your conclusions (or those of the author’s) that the real reason we deposed Mossedeq was for oil is debatable- Brian
Well, Brian, admittedly, I’ve only read two books that have had to deal with the Iranian coup, and both point to oil as the true underlyhing cause.
The fact that you are debating this pretty much proves that this is debatable. Ha!
But, yes, if you search for links proving my sources are supsect, you’re going to find them. “Legacy of Ashes,” however, is meticulously researched and highly-lauded, though I can certainly see why some, particularly those affiliated with the CIA, find fault.
The other book, “All the Shah’s Men” though not as professional, included a confession from the British agent who pushed Eisenhower to back the coup, in which he states that oil, not Communism, was the real reason for the coup. (The agent wrote a memoir about his involvement, and author Stephen Kinzer included the confession in his book)
If you or anyone else wants to believe that the fight against Communism was the reason for the Iranian and subsequent U.S.-sponsored coups, I’m certainly not going to change your mind.
At this point, you’re not going to change mine, either.
But then again, I think that the past is prologue, and others would prefer not to worry about past sins, as if they have no relevance on anything that’s occuring today. Or they look for reasons to whitewash what occured, so they can continue to buy into whatever myths help them to believe whatever it is they believe.
(Hell. . . Look at how many people believe the Camelot Myth or buy into the notion that Obama is a White Kinight who will charge into the White House and change everything).
Could I change their mind? Nope. I just want to search for the truth and not blindly buy into bullshit, from either the right or the left.
I know you THINK you do, Ymar, and I find it very entertaining. But, alas, you can’t even get my gender right.
I was the first one, perhaps only one, to correct people that Oz had mentioned she was a she, not a he. But since you didn’t pay any attention to that or correct us or actually make a relevant comment on this subject, why do you think I would spend my time on things that are obviously irrelevant to you, Oz?
When you make an issue of your gender, be assured I will pounce all over it. But until then, it’s just like any other thing you ignore, cause it’s convenient for you, until it isn’t.
I know you THINK you do, Ymar
You can try to convince yourself that I’m wrong and you are right, but you do not even attempt to make an argument about the merits of my claims and statements. You accept them as the de facto truth, for what else can you do?
You can try to convince yourself that I’m wrong and you are right, but you do not even attempt to make an argument about the merits of my claims and statements. -Ymar
I ignore your comments because they are silly.
If you want to pretend to be an expert on me, have at it.
As I said, it’s very entertaining.
I ignore your comments because they are silly.
You ignore my arguments because you cannot best them. And you never could, even though you tried.
Besides, whenever your philosophical beliefs are changed on their fundamentals, rather than the peripheral superficial layers like the ones BrianE has touched upon, you call challenges to your core beliefs “silly”, for there is no other way it could be for your philosophy and beliefs to function.
Brian agrees with me and sees your core beliefs for what they are. Unchangeable by him, yet he tries to continue things with you because he has the courage to face challenges to his own positions and attempt to forge through them and make his own arguments stronger for it by adhering to the political philosophy of Jefferson when it comes to debating ideas.
It matters to him, one way or another. It doesn’t to you. And I’ve provided plenty of explanations for why.
The problem I see, Ozzie, is that you state that you are looking for “the truth”. In fact, there seem to be many truths, and what you do is choose the one that you want to believe.
I haven’t done the research you’ve done, and haven’t read your favorite book, so I’ll just assume that it’s factual. If so, then the Brits wanted the US to pull their chesnuts out of the fire because they needed oil. I’ll accept that as a truth. Then the Brits deliberately manipulated Eisenhower by convincing him that Iran might go Communist because they knew that that was an argument that would convince Eisenhower. Ok…so _that’s_ a truth. Then you jump the gun and say “so the _real_ – the _true_ reason we overthrew the Iranian government was because of oil”. But that’s _not_ true. It may be an original cause, but it was _not_ the motivation for the US getting involved – so you don’t really want the truth, you want to allege base commercial motives to the US, (Not that I think commercial motives are necessarily base, but that’s a different issue.) when in fact the motivation of the US – or at least of the President of the US who made the decision – was fear of the spread of Communism, not the desire for oil.
It may be an original cause, but it was _not_ the motivation for the US getting involved – so you don’t really want the truth, you want to allege base commercial motives to the US,- suek
And I’m telling you it’s not alleged.
To me, it’s the truth, based on what I’ve read.
To people who only read what they find via a Google search, it’s not.
But, once again, in the end, the ultimate Truth is what God sees when he looks at a situtaion.
Some people believe that He condones the U.S coups in Iran and Guatemala and Chile and countless other places, along with all the horror that followed.
I, on the other hand, highly doubt it.
Brian agrees with me and sees your core beliefs for what they are. – Ymar
Silly!
when in fact the motivation of the US – or at least of the President of the US who made the decision – was fear of the spread of Communism, not the desire for oil- suel
I’ve said that from the beginning. I think Eisenhower acted out of fear and that he was fooled.
But I still believe that oil was the motivation to trick Eisenhower in the first place.
Other people obviously don’t believe it was.
But onto the bigger picture:
The CIA was formed as an intelligence gathering service and by 1953, got into the cloak and dagger business – overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, engaging in assassination, installing brutal secret police forces, kidnapping Americans and performing experiments on them and smuggling Nazis into the country.
Communism was evil, but, in my mind, so was all of this.
>>I’ve said that from the beginning. I think Eisenhower acted out of fear and that he was fooled.
But I still believe that oil was the motivation to trick Eisenhower in the first place.>>
It may have been, but that doesn’t make it _his_ motivation. You’re accusing the US of doing something for a particular reason. That’s false – the reason you’re using was _Britain’s_ motivation, not that of the US.
>>The CIA was formed as an intelligence gathering service and by 1953, got into the cloak and dagger business – overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, engaging in assassination, installing brutal secret police forces, kidnapping Americans and performing experiments on them and smuggling Nazis into the country.>>
Again, accepting that this is fact (and I don’t know that it is) it assumes that the administration knew and approved of the activity. If it did not, then it may be responsible for lack of oversight, but I’d say it was not responsible for the illicit acts. If the administration _knew_ of these actions, then it _was_ responsible for them.
By the way…if you read Timmerman’s book “Shadow Warriors”, you might find support for your theory. In my opinion, the book shows Bush’s biggest failure – that of not taking control of various organizations which were seething with Clinton appointees who were determined to a) cause Bush’s agenda to fail and b) to effect agendas _they_ chose instead.
Ozzie,
Ouch! By the way, did you read the article I linked.
As an incentive, it’s not very flattering toward US policy. Would Mossedeq fallen to the Tudeh party at some future date without US intervention? Probably, since the Soviet Union was known to not play nice either.
If you read the Iranian NIE for 1955, gains in Soviet expansion still were a concern, though the report acknowledged that the Tudeh party had received a setback when communist inflitration in the military had been uncovered.
It’s still popular in intellectual circles to minimize any threat that communism posed to the world or American interests and was merely the foil to American imperialism.
If I understand the thrust of your argument, it’s that the CIA throughout history has not represented American democratic interests, but American corporate interests of greed and imperialism.
And while you’re willing to give our elected leaders a pass as being duped by this secret corporate government, that doesn’t in your mind, make the American policies any more noble.
I’m kind of with you from the perspective that I personally resent the idea of America sticking its nose in other countries business. The problem with this is that the other foreign governments whose expressed goal was to bury us didn’t share this attitude. The idea that Soviet expansionism was benign would have been dangerous and deadly then, as is the idea that enemies of democracy aren’t working to undermine us today.
If war is diplomacy by other means, then the CIA was stealth diplomacy short of war. As distasteful as it seems, covert wars were waged around the globe to counter Soviet expansionism. These covert operations (think proxy battles) were no doubt less lethal than military operations.
Looking back, it’s fairly obvious that persons dedicated to pursuing goals using either soft power or hard power are going to come up with some fairly reprehensible plans. After all, war isn’t about morality, but about power. It’s about maximizing harm to the enemy with the least amount of harm to yourself. For the most part, our leaders have resisted the urge to try out some of the more amoral plans concocted, though some truly bizarre ideas did make it through– think MKULTRA.
Anyway, back to Iran. After the oil settlement was reached in 1954, oil production increased, as did revenues to the Iranian government. Prior to the coup, the highest level of oil production and direct revenue to Iran, was reached in 1950; AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) then produced about 35 million cubic meters of oil and paid to Iran in taxes and royalties about $44.7 million (1954 dollars). Iran’s receipts for the same level of production in 1957 was $175 million. Iran received about $385 million in revenue from 1954-57.
The Shah was a weak, autocratic ruler that did much for Iran, but through personal failings drove opposing parties into the Islamic fundamentalist camp. We have Jimmy Carter to thank for the success of the Islamic revolution in 1979.
It may have been, but that doesn’t make it _his_ motivation. You’re accusing the US of doing something for a particular reason. That’s false – the reason you’re using was _Britain’s_ motivation, not that of the US. — Brian
I’m saying that the motivation for the coup in Iran was oil. I’ve said that I believe that Eisenhower was tricked, but it doesn’t change my belief that the primary motivation for the coup was oil.
This is what I believe: If Mossadeq had not nationalized Iran’s oil, he wouldn’t have been considered a “communist threat” and there would have been no coup.
You can believe otherwise. But I would suggest that if you are truly interested in the 1953 coup, you read a recent book instead of doing a Google search.
“Ouch! By the way, did you read the article I linked.” — Brian
I did. I also read what you posted re: Legacy of Ashes.
It doesn’t change my mind about the coups in Iran or Guatemala, however.
Or make me any less certain that the CIA should have stuck with intelligence gathering and have never have gotten into the coup, assassination and “secret war” business in the first place.
For the most part, our leaders have resisted the urge to try out some of the more amoral plans concocted, though some truly bizarre ideas did make it through– think MKULTRA.– Brian
MK-Ultra was truly bizarre. If you think today’s Dr. Strangeloves have given up on the whole mind control thingie, you haven”t been paying attention.
DARPA has been devloping ways to keep soldiers awake for days at a time and I just read this tidbit today:
“Other questions raised by controlling the mind: ‘How can we make people trust us more?’ ‘What if we could help the brain to remove fear or pain?’ ‘Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?’… As cognitive neuroscience and related technologies become more pervasive, using technology for nefarious purposes becomes easier.”
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/minding-mental-minefields/
By the way…if you read Timmerman’s book “Shadow Warriors”, you might find support for your theory. In my opinion, the book shows Bush’s biggest failure – that of not taking control of various organizations which were seething with Clinton appointees who were determined to a) cause Bush’s agenda to fail and b) to effect agendas _they_ chose instead.- Brian. . Thanks for the tip.
I just came across an author who says what I’ve been thinking forever – that the Democrat Vs Republican debate is a simply a smoke screen and unless Americans wake up, we’re going to be in deep doo-doo. Oh, and that what we’re doing to our soldiers is “morally corrisive.”
From a Bill Moyers interview:
ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the great lies about American politics is that Democrats genuinely subscribe to a set of core convictions that make Democrats different from Republicans. And the same thing, of course, applies to the other party. It’s not true. I happen to define myself as a conservative.
Well, what do conservatives say they stand for? Well, conservatives say they stand for balanced budgets. Small government. The so called traditional values.
Well, when you look back over the past 30 or so years, since the rise of Ronald Reagan, which we, in many respects, has been a conservative era in American politics, well, did we get small government?
Do we get balanced budgets? Do we get serious as opposed to simply rhetorical attention to traditional social values? The answer’s no. Because all of that really has simply been part of a package of tactics that Republicans have employed to get elected and to – and then to stay in office.
BILL MOYERS: And, yet, you say that the prime example of political dysfunction today is the Democratic Party in relation to Iraq.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, “Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War.”
And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been – one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war.
BILL MOYERS: And you say the promises of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi prove to be empty. Reid and Pelosi’s commitment to forcing a change in policy took a backseat to their concern to protect the Democratic majority.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Could anybody disagree with that?
BILL MOYERS: You say, and this is another one of my highlighted sentences, that “Anyone with a conscience sending soldiers back to Iraq or Afghanistan for multiple combat tours, while the rest of the country chills out, can hardly be seen as an acceptable arrangement. It is unfair. Unjust. And morally corrosive.” And, yet, that’s what we’re doing. ”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html
Ozzie….
Do you personally know any US military personnel?
Define “corrosive”.
“That which does not kill us makes us stronger’
The fact that the rest of the country chills out is not relevant to what improves or depleats the military. The military does _not_ want your chilling out citizen in its forces – we did that in Vietnam, and it was more detrimental to our forces than had the military done the job with all volunteers.
What concerns me is the cultural gap between the military and the civilian US citizen. I fear for our future. I’d like to see young men required to serve for some period, but then you’re in the situation once again of unwilling recruits, and you have a court system in place that is unlikely to support the draconian measures that might be necessary to enforce discipline. That would not be good, and the military is not a social service, much as we could benefit by its being so.
In other words, the military has _men_ – no matter what their age. The “chilled out citizen” is still a “youth”. Not a good thing, imo.
Everything is relative to Oz, except Oz’s truth.
THe basic fundamental difference is that Oz thinks the US and Soviet actions weren’t very differentiable due to Democrat and Republican similaries, as Oz sees it. This means that Oz’s truth is differentiable, easily, from all the lies told by Oz’s political opponents and philosophical challengers.
Do you personally know any US military personnel’ – suel
My father fought in World War II and my brother-in-law fought in Vietnam, but right now, i only know one person who served in Iraq who came home and went to school to become a state trooper. He was being sent back to Iraq, but someone pulled strings and he is now out of the military.
Oh, and he’s changed his mind about Iraq, too.
Define “corrosive”. Suek
With frequent deployments, stop-loss orders, etc. , we’re asking far too much of our military, with a Pentgon study reporting that the military is stretched too thin.
Many Op-Eds I’ve read about the situation Georgia say that it revealed just how over-extended the U.S. military is.
But as to “corrosive”
“Since 2003, the total number of personnel diagnosed with PTSD has reached nearly 40,000, according to statistics provided by the Army.. . . But military officials have long acknowledged the actual number isn’t known because many troops, leery of the stigma attached to mental health issues, don’t report having problems.”
“That which does not kill us makes us stronger’ – suek
Since you’ve mentioned it, suicide among military personel is on the rise, as well.
THe basic fundamental difference is that Oz thinks the US and Soviet actions weren’t very differentiable due to Democrat and Republican similaries, as Oz sees it. — Ymar
I’m guessing that there is plenty of blame and stupidity to go around, and that trying to dress any of this up as good guys vs bad guys is childish.
If you’re a Republican the trick is to make Bush/McCain look stellar and if you’re a Democrat, the trick is to make the Clinton/Obama look wise, but none of that is terribly honest.
Today, Tom Friedman used a metaphor that I found very interesting:
“If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
What
Yeah, it’s all about stupidity, except for this:
http://www.fortfreedom.org/h10.htm
Communist governments were responsible for the deaths of 95 million people. Free governments were responsible for .8 million deaths.
Call me childish, but it isn’t very hard to dress this up as good guys vs bad guys.
“Since 2003, the total number of personnel diagnosed with PTSD has reached nearly 40,000, according to statistics provided by the Army.. . . But military officials have long acknowledged the actual number isn’t known because many troops, leery of the stigma attached to mental health issues, don’t report having problems.”
The last sentence re-confirms the state of progress that the military has worked hard to usher into reality, the reality of getting more people to report PTSD so that they can be treated after the fact as well as before the fact by increasing awareness and reducing denial of and delusion on the problem.
Oz is unable to see beyond the fictions and superficialities of convenient truths and facts. All facts have more than one interpretation, except in Oz’s morally relative and subjective criteria for judging reality. Then, Oz’s interpretation is the only true interpretation, you see.
The number of people killed by totalitarian or
extreme authoritarian governments already far exceeds that for all
wars, civil and international.. – Brian
When I was talking about good guys vs bad guys, I was talking about what was happening in Georgia, where it looks as if there is plenty of blame to go around, starting with Georgia’s tie-gobbling president.
But yes, Totalitarian and authoritarian governments are HORRIBLE. Which is why it’s s shame the U.S. propped so many of them up.
I grew up believing that Russia and China were the bad guys and that America was a champion of freedom and democracy around the world.
I was SHOCKED to learn otherwise.
I’ve actually read estimates that U.S inteventions led to the death of millions. I could Google and Google to find all sorts of things. But how can I be sure what the truth is?
Books are better, Brian. I promise!
Oz’s morally relative and subjective criteria for judging reality- Ymar
Ah. But you see, while the search for Truth is the noblest endeavor, it’s very difficult to uncover the Truth, which is what God sees when he views a situation.
Humans are fallbile, so what rings true for one might not ring true for another.
God knows the truth, however. Thank God!
It’s not so difficult for one such as Oz, obviously. All others are wrong, misguided, or deceived except the one and only.
Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.
It’s not so difficult for one such as Oz, obviously. – Ymar
Actually, it’s very difficult for me to know what’s true and what isnt true, Ymar.
I think the truth is very difficult to decipher, though I can say what I believe to be true, with the understanding that anyone with a computer can find evidence to the contrary. God knows the truth. With Google, it’s hit and miss.
I’ve read that MILLONS have died as the result of CIA coups and the dictatorships we’ve installed, but is that the truth? If it depends on who you ask, how can it be the truth?
It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths.
From Christopher Columbus’ log:
“They willingly traded everything they owned…. They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane…. They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”- Christopher Columbus on the Arawak Indians
I was taught that this guy was the type of guy a girl could look up to.
But, as far as I’m concenred, that wasn’t the truth, either.
I’ve actually read estimates that U.S inteventions led to the death of millions. I could Google and Google to find all sorts of things. But how can I be sure what the truth is?
Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.- Brian
The Source I was thinking of was former CIA honcho John Stockwell .
In 1987, he estimated that at minimum, 6 million people in the Congo, Indonesia, Vietnam and other third world died as a result of CIA interventions.
That number would be significantly higher today.
You can listen to him on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4
Or read a copy of this lecture:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
This is just one example, but I now expect you to look at the videos next to this and/or look for ways to discredit him. So, what’s the point?
One Bonus: He urges people to actively seek the truth by reading books.
My advice is stick with declassified information that has been proven and stay away from speculation.
I was SHOCKED to learn otherwise.
Yes, you were shocked once you realized the truth, because obviously once you realized the truth, you no longer became fallible and prone to mistakes in holding such truth.
Although why one would think having believed false logic and false events to be true, this would produce the requisite virtues and habits of good judgment, ethical behavior, and solid epistemology to decide on other issues of reality, is unknown.
I was taught that this guy was the type of guy a girl could look up to.
If you believe that a guy who miscalculated the diameter of the world and discovered a continent by accident thinking it was some place else, was the kind of person you should look up to, then by all means. But it was not your history teachers that mislead you, for they never claimed that Columbus knew where he was going or how far he was from land.
It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths.
Like the myth that the surge was going to fail because Bush was just wasting blood and treasure to stay the course?
No, some myths are more inconvenient than others, aren’t they, Oz.
This is just one example, but I now expect you to look at the videos next to this and/or look for ways to discredit him. So, what’s the point?
The point is simple, given that you have irrefutably given the ability to determine truth unto God, this excuses you when you make mistakes, as is natural. When it is hit or miss on Google and you use the sources and research and thoughts of others and repeat their claims, who is to say that you are wrong or right?
There is no point, that is exactly it, for moral and intellectual relativism leads ultimately to nihilism and nihilism ultimately leads to nothing.
It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths. – Me
Like the myth that the surge was going to fail because Bush was just wasting blood and treasure to stay the course?
No, some myths are more inconvenient than others, aren’t they, Oz.- Ymar
Is this a long-standing myth that has been proven to be false?
But hey, since you brought it up: I believe that ARE wasting blood and treasure in Iraq .
And I also believe that our rampant spending as increased our risk, as one of the “I.O.U.S.A.,” experts put it, at “of being held hostage by foreign lenders.” (Can you say China, boys and girls).
You obviously believe otherwise, Ymar.
I remember all the braying over G.W. Bush in his flight suit and the Mission Accomplished banner and the fall of Saddam’s statue, where peoepl were laughing at the naysayers. . . And I thought, “Not so fast. . . ”
I’m thinking the same thing now.
who is to say that you are wrong or right?- Ymar
That’s pretty much my point, Ymar.
I can only say what I believe to be true.
It’s hard to decipher what is REALLY true.
It’s hard to decipher what is REALLY true.
I see. So Brian and others of like mind can take your claims of deaths and American actions as just that. Claims that you yourself don’t truly believe or can substantiate or defend.
It is a definite clarification that had you lived during a time when the top intellectuals, government officials, and writers sought to uphold the status quo rather than undermine it, that you would have been a Crown Loyalist and Conservative, Oz.
I believe that ARE wasting blood and treasure in Iraq .
As I said, some myths are more inconvenient to dispel than others, Oz. No matter how much you might protest that you enjoy seeing the status quo line being challenged by new facts and arguments and the truth. In reality, what you really value is seeing the progress of humanity sabotaged and destroyed.
All the traditions and beliefs that uphold civilization and progress and security, you enjoy to see challenged. All the traditions and myths, like the MSM’s communal mind decision on Iraq, are things you agree with and seek to maintain and protect.
You’re not against the status quo, Oz. You’re just against good things happening as the human species progress from unenlightened to a state of being more enlightened.
Is this a long-standing myth that has been proven to be false?
About as long standing as your belief about Bush and the Carrier landing.
I see. So Brian and others of like mind can take your claims of deaths and American actions as just that. Claims that you yourself don’t truly believe or can substantiate or defend- Ymar
Oy! Hopefully Brian has better critical reading skills than you do, Ymar.
but then again,he’s the one who asked me to share what I’d read.
In case you missed it:
Brian: Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.
I’ve suggested that he read books based on declassified information and not rely on Google or speculation.
“But it was not your history teachers that mislead you, for they never claimed that Columbus knew where he was going or how far he was from land.” _ Ymar
I get that you’ve become on Expert on ME, but now youre an expert on my elementary school, too? Where I come from, we celebrated Columbus Day, not “Some Selfish Schmuck Day.”
About as long standing as your belief about Bush and the Carrier landing.” – -Ymar
I didnt realize that Bush landing on that aircraft carrier was a myth, I thought that was a fact.
But, now that you mention it a substantial amount of myth-making came from the press.
My favorites:
“The president has to meet a testosterone standard that appeals to women but does not offend men. George W. Bush succeeds with both and that drives Democrats crazy. They’ve made fools of themselves with their churlish criticism of his landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln, but they can’t let it go. George W. was a hottie in his flight suit. He was the victorious commander, and most of all he looked at home with himself. He glowed with the pride born of authenticity, declaring the war over and thanking all those appreciative sailors on the decks of the Lincoln.” — Susan Fields, the Washington Times
“I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking–how to put it?–really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly “hot,” as in virile, sexy and powerful.”
Lisa Schiffren, the Wall Street Journal
(Schiffren also praised Bush for using “overwhelming military force to vanquish a truly evil foe,” and for “facing down balking former ‘allies,’” and implied that it was ridiculous that “he is not taken seriously as a foreign-policy president.”)
And James Wolcott addressed the media coverage for Vanity Fair:
“One of the more cringe-inducing TV moments in recent memory was Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy sprouting rhetorical woodies over the spectacle of Bush on the carrier deck in his flight suit, his parachute harness showcasing the presidential bulge — or, to use Liddy’s inimitable phrase, “his manly characteristic.” One guy to another, Liddy put Matthews wise. “You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count, they’re all liars. Check that out.”
Matthews: “And I’ve got to say why do the Democrats, as you say, want to keep advertising this guy’s greatest moment?”
Liddy: “Look, he’s coming across as a, well, as women would call in my show saying, what a stud. . .”
I didnt realize that Bush landing on that aircraft carrier was a myth, I thought that was a fact.
Legends are created from real events, even if they get the details wrong. Why would myths function differently?
But, now that you mention it a substantial amount of myth-making came from the press.
You believe in those producers of deception, such as the MSM, far more than any of us, Oz. There is no point in criticizing them, when they are not the problem.
I get that you’ve become on Expert on ME, but now youre an expert on my elementary school, too? Where I come from, we celebrated Columbus Day, not “Some Selfish Schmuck Day.”
If the sum total of intellectual discourse to you is about some subject you learned in elementary school, then I doubt you have much to offer on this score.
Ozzie,
John Stockwell is a very passionate man. His allegations are very serious and deserve serious consideration, since unlike Weiner, he was a member of the club. Perused his speech, and noticed a small inconsistency.
didn’t realize that Russia invaded Afghanistan as a reaction to a CIA covert action. I’ll have to check into that. More later.- Brian
-
I don’t know much about that era, either.
My original premise was that nobody really knows the truth for years and years, until records become declassified.
In 2002, however, I read a few accounts that have come true:
1) That Saddam Hussein did not have WMD
2) That the U.S could expect trouble with the Soveit Union over Caspian basin pipeline politics.
I learned early on not to discuss such things with many people, who prefer to believe what makes them feel good over what is true.
It’s been a pleasure meeting you, though, Brian. You have an intellectual curiousity that’s refreshing!
That the U.S could expect trouble with the Soveit Union over Caspian basin pipeline politics.. Me
Ooops! I meant Russia, not the Soviet Union.
“I didn’t realize that Russia invaded Afghanistan as a reaction to a CIA covert action. I’ll have to check into that.”- Brian
Hey, Brian, your post got me interested in where I might find more info, too. Turns out the current Secretary of Defense, former CIA honcho revealed this info in his book “From the Shadows.”
While I was looking, I found a 1998 Zbigniew Brzezinski interview, which was translated from a French magazine. If accurate, it’s pretty explosive:
http://www.ucc.ie/acad/appsoc/tmp_store/mia/Library/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm
The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
——————————————————————————–
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
“I had always thought Afghanistan was one of the CIA successes.” – Brian
I tried to find out more about the book, “From the Shadows” and this USA Today article about “Charlie Wilson’s War” popped up, with a quote from Chalmers Johnson.
It “certainly defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and probably defeated the Soviet Union period. But the costs were enormous,” said Johnson, author of the book “Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-15-4096010899_x.htm
I’ve read articles by Chalmers Johnson, and like him, but that could simply be because I agree with him re: blowback and ways the past influences the present.
Other people might find him decidedly distasteful.
>>But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.>>
This statement alone makes me question his bona fides. What there is in common among those islamic fundamentalists is a desire to unite the world under the Grand Caliphate. They are united by a religion that requires them to kill or suppress all other religions. Christian fundamentalists desire your conversion. Muslims demand it. Christian fundamentalists say “come and you will have eternal life”. Muslims say “come or we’ll kill you”.
Allowing government records or pundits, after the fact, to decide what and how you think, Oz, is not exactly a recommend way for individuals to develop critical and independent thinking abilities.
It does not make you any less prejudiced, but it does prevent you from learning virtuous habits on how to judge information as they happen.
More on Brzezinski…
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dems-could-revise-poland-missile-deal
More on Brzezinski- Suek
Zbigniew Brzezinski aklso wroye a book called, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” which I forced myself to read.
a Mini Review:
“But the heart of the book is the ambitious strategy it prescribes for extending the Euro-Atlantic community eastward to Ukraine and lending vigorous support to the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, part and parcel of what might be termed a strategy of “tough love” for the Russians. . . ”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19971101fabook3692/zbigniew-brzezinski/the-grand-chessboard-american-primacy-and-its-geostrategic-imperatives.html
Anyone who thinks that the Democrats aren’t interested in “American Primacy” haven’t read Brzezinski.
From the book:
“But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
Sounds a lot like the neoconservative outlook to me.
Remember, Mr. Brzezinski is one of Mr. Obama’s top advisors. – From Suek’s link
It seems to me that regardless who wins the election (and regardless which candidate promises what) U.S. foreign policy will revole around American hegemony.
“What has bothered Brzezinski is that as a result of the Soviet collapse, the United States is the unquestioned world leader, unchallenged for the moment by any other power. But American democracy does not lend itself well to the running of empires. This has frustrated Brzezinski, who has now provided another scholarly blueprint for what he believes the United States should do in coming years to further America’s interests, maintain the hegemony it commands and prevent global anarchy.” – The New York Times review of The Grand Chessboard, 1997
“In essence, (Bush’s National Security Strategy] lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence. . . . The report’s repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire. “- ” Jay Bookman, The President’s Real Goal in Iraq, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2002
http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/g-w/n/ajc_com%20%20Opinion%20%20Bush's%20real%20goal%20in%20Iraq.htm
Those critical of CIA work from these tenets:
From the website, Third World Taveler.
If you accept these “truths”, you will be critical of American policy.
Ozzie, I said I’d look at the speech by John Stockwell, where he obliquely claims the CIA has been responsible for 6 million deaths.
I can’t refute that claim which includes Vietnam, for several reasons- the chief being it is speculation that fighting wouldn’t have occurred and people died had we done nothing. What Stockwell charges is that these conflicts would have never happened had we not intervened. Which is patently false.
Did the CIA and US policy support the wrong people? In hindsight, probably. This all falls into speculation, which is much of what Stockwell deals with.
Here’s some quotes of this speech:
Cuba began meddling in Africa in 1963, and the Soviet Union before then.
This is a man that has aligned himself with those he at one time opposed. It’s one thing to point out the failings of CIA operations. It’s another thing to throw yourself into understanding communist dogma, and allowing your judgement to become clouded. I couldn’t help but think—propaganda.
Talking about Reagan administration:
The man has gone over to the other side. If you believe there’s another side.
Those critical of CIA work from these tenets- Brian
I dont believe that Communism never existed, or that it wasn’t (and isnt) evil, Brian, and it looks as if you’re deliberately trying to discredit people, based on a false premise.
Once again, a book will be far more enlighting than a trip to “Third World Traveler.”
At times you seem genuninely interested in this history.. If you are, read a book. If not, stick with what you believe to be the truth.
Letter from Cuban intelligence operative Pineiro to Raul Castro in November, 1972:
November 14, 1965
Letter from Che Gueverra to head of Cuban Intelligence Operations in Zaire
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/
Review of the “Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America
It is clear from these documents is that Cuba was involved in countries around Africa, introducing its version of Marxism, the Soviet Union had infiltrated the US government (Venona documents), and the KGB had been at work around the world before the CIA was chartered and much of what we did was a reaction to their threats.
We can argue the mistakes, because that’s what we get to do in an open society. I’m sure there are folks in the former Soviet Union, having similar discussions about the failings and excesses of the KGB and the communist part bosses during this same time period.
Talking about Reagan administration:
They’re building detention centers. There were 8 kept as mothballs under the McLaren act after World War II, to detain aliens and dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as was done with the Japanese people during World War II. They’re building 10 more, and army camps, and the… executive memos about these things say it’s for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency….
he was describing Rex 84, Brian. He was telling the truth.
On July 5, 1987, the Miami Herald gave us a glimpse of what the lead counsel for the Senate Iran-contra committee called a “secret government-within-a-government” and alerted readers to standby legislation, which, as columnist Jack Anderson had previously warned, was meant to “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
These provisions still stand, by the way.
From the Sydney Morning Herald in 2002:
“Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.”
– The Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html
Ozzie,
I’m curious about your obsession with books.
Yes, the internet is full of kooks and propoganda, but it’s also full of good information.
If you assume that a book will be more reliable in it’s information, that is probably true, since hopefully it has been fact checked by the editors. But it certainly doesn’t guarantee a lack of bias.
Think of my posts more in realm of a newspaper reporter, since that’s what I used to be.
I do follow a process before I’ll link to information.
I’m not anti-book though.
It’s more the tone of his (Stockwell) comments that caught my attention.
Yeah, except congress was controlled by democrats at the time and I doubt “standby legislation” that would “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” would have passed.
We can argue the mistakes, because that’s what we get to do in an open society- Brian
Read Legacy of Ashes and then we can have an honest discussion.
Until then, you are arguing from an erroneous belief based on something that you read on Third World Traveler.
Nobody said that Communism wasn’t a legitimate threat. Especially in Cuba.
Yeah, except congress was controlled by democrats at the time and I doubt “standby legislation” that would “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” would have passed.
- Brian
By George, I think he’s got it!!!
It doesnt matter if Democrats or Reopublicans are in the White House or in Congress, and the “Left vs Right” debate blinds Americans to the fact that the Constitution and civl liberties are in jeopardy, no matter which party holds power.
For your consideration:
1967: Assisted by an Army task force, President Johnson establishes the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, which calls for the use of military force to squelch civil disturbances. On May 4, 1970, four students are killed at Kent State University when the Ohio National Guard fires at unarmed protesters.
1971: Sen. Sam Ervin’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights uncovers a military intelligence surveillance system used against thousands of American citizens, and stumbles upon Operation Garden Plot (the United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2), which, according to information released under the Freedom of Information Act, gives federal forces the authority to use “deadly force” against any “dissident.”
1975: Journalists Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lublow investigate Operation Cable Splicer, a subplan of Operation Garden Plot, designed to control civilian populations and take over state and local governments. Bill Moyers later lists Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot among examples of ways “the secret government [has] waged war on the American people.” Sen. Frank Church’s Committee to Study Government Operations sheds light on government-sanctioned civil rights abuses, most notably those conducted from 1956 to 1971, under the COINTELPRO initiative.
1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans, which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for “the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.” Columnist Jack Anderson reports that FEMA’s emergency “standby legislation” is meant to “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
1984: The Rex-84 “readiness exercise” program is conducted by 34 federal departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan’s directive. Reportedly established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of massive civil unrest.
.May 11, 1998: World Net Daily’s Geoff Metcalf addresses Internet rumors about concentration camps for U.S. citizens. “The U.S. Army director of resource management has confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development by the Department of Army,” he writes, before validating Rep. Henry Gonzalez’s 1994 statement, that “The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps.”
Sept. 11, 2001: President Bush activates a Cold-War era shadow government, installing cabinet members in underground bunkers. When this plan is uncovered months later, members of Congress reveal that they were not consulted.
In the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Office of Special Plans takes root at the Pentagon. In time, the OSP rivals the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. as the President’s main source of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.
Oct. 2001: Shortly after Democratic legislators are targeted in anthrax attacks, the PATRIOT Act is railroaded through Congress and the Senate, without the benefit of committee hearings or extended debate.
Nov. 2001: The Bush administration issues executive orders allowing for the use of special military courts and empowering Atty. General John Ashcroft to detain non-citizens indefinitely. Noted conservative William Safire writes that “a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power.” The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) is introduced to state governors, allowing for confiscation of real estate and other private property and outlining plans to herd citizens into stadiums. President Bush’s first Executive Order effectively repeals access to presidential records.
Feb. 2002: Former FEMA deputy director, John Brinkerhoff defends the Pentagon’s desire to deploy troops on American streets, arguing that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 has been misinterpreted.
April 2002: It’s announced that Northern Command will debut in October to assist in homeland defense. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, the NORAD commander in charge of air defense on Sept. 11, is later named by George W. Bush to serve at its head. Though NORTHCOM’s Web site assures that its “operations within the United States are governed by law, including the Posse Comitatus Act,” Eberhart admits in an interview that, “We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people.”
June 2002: Former White House counsel John Dean writes an article asking, “Could terrorism result in a constitutional dictator?” A month later, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Bush administration might employ Reagan-era security initiatives, installing “internment camps and martial law in the United States.” In Aug., the LA Times reports on Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s “desire for [detention] camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be enemy combatants.”
July 2002: Peter Kirsanow, a Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, warns that should America be attacked again, the public will clamor for Arab-Americans to be placed in internment camps. “If they [the terrorists] come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights,” he said.
Nov. 25, 2002: After the 32 page Homeland Security Bill ballooned to nearly 500 pages overnight, and was railroaded through the Senate and Congress, it is signed into law. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) says it represents “the most severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act” in 36 years; and Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) worries that it “expands the federal police state.”
Feb. 2003: Confidential draft legislation entitled “The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” is leaked to the Center for Public Integrity and Executive Director Chuck Lewis deems it “five to ten times” worse than the original PATRIOT Act.
May 2003: Atlanta Police Department acknowledges that it routinely places antiwar protesters under surveillance. “This harkens back to some very dark times in our nation’s history,” state Rep. Nan Orrock tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
July 2003: In the midst of revelations regarding the hyped case for war in Iraq, documents from Dick Cheney’s Energy Task are released and the public learns that the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy recommended that Cheney’s task force consider “a ‘military’ option in dealing with Iraq,” five months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Oct. 2003: FBI Intelligence Bulletin no. 89 is sent to police departments. One month later, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero tells the New York Times: “This bulletin confirms that the federal government is targeting innocent Americans” and says, “It is troubling that the FBI is advocating spying on peaceful protesters, but even protesters who engage in civil disobedience or other disruptive acts should not be treated like potential terrorists.”
Dec. 2003: In an interview, Gen. Tommy Franks warns that if terrorists unleash “a weapon of mass destruction. . . somewhere in the Western world” (but not necessarily in the U.S.) it may “begin to militarize our country” and “unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”
To Oz, people wrote books and people wrote stuff on the internet. The difference is, the people who the books Oz uses to support Oz’s belief, are valid while the works of people on google is “hit and miss”.
The difference is, the people who the books Oz uses to support Oz’s belief, are valid while the works of people on google is “hit and miss- Yam
Isnt that a no-brainer?
The difference is that well-respected authors tend to rely upon meticulous research, and back up they say with pages and pages of notes. Then, too, serious authors who write books about the CIA must have their work vetted by the CIA- else they get sued.
People on the Internet often mistake opinion for fact, and believe and repeat things that are simply not true. And many back up their opinions, citing others’ opinions, which can be entertaining, but not neccesarily true.
Ozzie said:
People on the Internet often mistake opinion for fact, and believe and repeat things that are simply not true. And many back up their opinions, citing others’ opinions, which can be entertaining, but not neccesarily true.
Facts are facts, whatever the source. They are either true or they are not. The benefit of the internet is you can sometimes get closer to the source than through a book, which is filtered through the author’s biases.
More on Legacy of Ashes:
Here is an in depth review of the book, if you are interested in balance:
http://cicentre.com/BK/legacy_of_ashes_review.pdf
Yes, Dumovic is a historian working for the CIA, but the events described are from meetings at which there are permanent records. Facts are facts.
Yes, Dumovic is a historian working for the CIA, but the events described are from meetings at which there are permanent records. Facts are facts.- Brian
Legacy of Ashes was vetted by the CIA before it went to press.
But I’m not surpised that the author’s perceptions are being challenged. Or that a CIA historian is challenging dates and details, while not arguing over the validity of the bigger issues such as the coups in Iran, Iraq, Guatemala and Chile.
That’s what I’m interested in. The declassifed stuff that’s proven to true.
Hell, I was shocked that he only briefly mentioned the Dr. Frank Olson case and he made it sound as if the Kennedy administration approved of Operation Northwoods.. and yes, I am aware that his peceptions are his perceptions.
Even so, he packs a whole slew of information within 600 or so pages.
I’m mostly interested in covert actions that become declassifed and available to the public, compared to what Americans were being told at the time.
The CIA doesn’t make judgements on the facts of a book, merely decides what material is still relevant to remain classified.
Weiner was willing to combine events to create a literary “event”. This should lead to questioning other “facts”. I’m sure you haven’t drawn conclusions based only on Weiner’s account.
Have you ever served in a capacity where you made decisions affecting others based on information that was confidential and couldn’t be revealed? Often your judgements are called into question, faulty conclusions are made about your motives, and you are unable to respond.
Weiner was willing to combine events to create a literary “event”. This should lead to questioning other “facts”. I’m sure you haven’t drawn conclusions based only on Weiner’s account-
Brian
My interest in the Iranian coup began long ago. Ditto for the coup in Iraq, and Gultemala and Chile.
His accounts simply reinforced other things I’ve read.
On the other hand, Weiner is certain that the current Bush administration didnt “cherry pick” intelligence and though he included information about “Curveball,” he omitted information about the Office of Special Plans.
This goes against things I’ve read for former CIA officers like Ray mcGovern.
In cases such as these, it’s diffcult to know who’s telling the truth. Though, in many cases, McGovern proved correct as things happened, in real time
When it comes to verifiable truth, however – especially where the CIA is concerned, declassified information is invaluable.
And this book, which is a history of the CIA, gives anyone who is interested in such things a place to start.