Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

quote:

---

Being a professional killer is to carry out murder, but that is a FACT you seem keen to elide.

---

So, all soldiers everywhere, for all time, have been murderers?Here we go, off the drama queen deep end.

quote:

---

Excfept for onew major fasult in your reasoning that has tripped up governments for time immemorial: if you use such an excuse to ignore my arguments, then resort to force will be next.

---

Hahaha. You can't force me to pay attention to the rude man.Of course, you wouldn't be threatening me, would you?

quote:

---

Oh no? Why not? American Exceptionalism again - there are no rules that apply to the mighty, virtuous Aemrica! It is a unique historical phenomenon!

​

What utter rubbish; this is pure hubris. America has an identifiable culture like any other country:

---

Like South Africa as a single, identifiable cutlure that can be generalized from?Tell me, do the black South Africans living in shanty towns have a similar cutlure to the white South Africans living on large estates?Can you generalize from them?

quote:

---

I remember how it started - you denied the material fact that soldiers commit murder.

---

No, not at all.This started because I pointed out to you that Tal is very unlikely to listen to you if you call him a murderer.I made no assertion regarding if he was a murderer or not.Are you rewriting history and making up shit now?

quote:

---

But because I am a more rigorous thinker than you are,

---

LOLOLOL!!!And much more humble, as well.

quote:

---

I do not make this apologists error, and describe the material facts as they are. If you and Tal cannot handle tha facts, that is not my problem it is yours.

---

I am not saying you are wrong about the facts.I am saying that nobody will listen to you if you deliver those facts in a rude, abrasive way.What is your goal?Is it to be shouting from the top of your little mountain with nobody listening?Lack of tact in debate results in few people being convinced, Contra, that is just a fact.I find it ironic that you have self righteously lecured me about people "not wanting to hear the hard truth", and yet here you are, not wanting to hear the hard truth about yourself.

quote:

---

Facetiously describing description of material fact as "insult" is merely an attempt to poison the well.

---

What is your goal?To get people to listen to you? If so, you are failing.

quote:

---

Yet, it is exactly this act of censorship that makes the US like Nazi Germany

---

Censorship?Has anyone EVER told you that you were not allowed to say what you wanted?I don't believe so.You are, in effect, censoring yourself because you are not delivering your message in a way that anyone is willing to listen to.That's your problem, not anyone else's.It DOES suck when you can't force people to take you seriously and listen to you no matter how abrasive and rude you are, doesn't it?Welcome to society.

quote:

---

the sense of self righteousness and national destiny that refuses to acknowledge any interpretation other than that of the domestic spin.

---

What the fuck are you talking about? "National destiny?"We are talking about the fact that nobody wants to listen to the rude, over the top axe grinder.

quote:

---

It is precisely this act that makes me so confident in my analysis; even otherwise rational people like yourself and Schraf are so permeated by American propaganda that you are simply unable to engage with the real world.

---

LOLOL!! There's that pot calling the kettle black again.You are often rude and mean in your posts, contra, and this makes you less likely to be listened to. THAT is being unable to engage in the real world. It repels people.

quote:

---

Do you mean self-censorship in the refusal to listen to your argument?

---

Yes, and in your painting of it as absurd and provocative. That is exactly how you got into the mess you are presently in - when the Arab world, for example, complained about support for dictators they were dismissed as radicals and fanatics. So they resorted to force, as you would not and will not engage in dialogue.

quote:

---

As for self-righteousness and national destiny, what else would you expect in a nation that has always had these things?

---

Well, that it will tend toward absolutism, of course. I have already remarked that I find it unsurprising that a state so firmly founded on the model of Rome has, like Rome, become a militaristic empire.

quote:

---

Later we have the success of the civil rights movement and also sanctioned communist witchhunts.

---

You mean the abject failure of the civil rights movement. No delusion is as cherished in the US than that there was some big sea-change in the middle of the century, but apart from the rhetoric, little changed. Also, while this was supposedly going on, the US was of course butchering the populace of Vietnam, and in that respect such civil rights as were achieved are only emblematic of American Exceptionalism. The civil rights moevement failed so comprehensively that now, 50 years on, homosexuality and feminism rmeain widely despised, and racism is rife.

quote:

---

Luckily the system here in the US is more robust then that of Nazi Germany and the ability to make change within the system has not been forsaken.

---

You forget that Hitler was ELECTED Reichskanzler; Hitler rose to power through the democratic process. What reason is there for thinking that the US system is more robust - can you actually support that claim from institutional comparisons?Furthermore, I mentioned furing thre last election that I was horrified to learn that the republicans had obtained legal consent to have observers in polling stations to vet voters. To vet the VOTERS? This is only a hair away from declaring the public election invalid. It presents the nightmare sceanrio of an election in which both parties have what amount to 'heavies' hanging around the polling booths making sure that the 'right people' vote. Your democracy is disintegrating - it has ceased to command genuine popular consent. Charges of irrationality are levelled by both sides, and when an irrational madman is due to be elected, surely taking matters into your own hands is justified? If your generals think that anti-war protestors are completely mad, what would they think of voters who elected an anti-war president?You are teetering on the brink of having brownshirts in the streets, IMO. You know, of course, that you are all liberal intellectuals and therefore despised by the republican heartland... but do you know that we have the term "egg head" for intellectual from the German 'eierkopf', because the SturmAbteilung found their heads broke so easily? But unlike Germany, what America does not have is a serious left wing opposition, certainly not one that can mobilise the working class to confront brownshirts in the streets. You are more exposed.

quote:

---

While your vehement disapproval of soldering is ethically admiriable it does seem to be quite a lofty and vacant position to hold given the world we live in and its history. I would hardly call the men in the US who volunteered for the Navy after Pearl Harbor murderers in any regard.

---

I suggest it is entirely realistic, in perfect accord with both history and reality, and that those men should indeed be termed murderers.

quote:

---

Murder is by definition the unlawfull killing on a human being. Therefore it is then up to the definition of unlawfull that would describe an act of killing as murder. Killing in self defense or in national defense should not be considered murder.

---

And what makes law? Power. And where does power come from? From the barrel of a gun. Thus, those who murder most effectively can nominate criteria by which their acts of murder are excused as something else, but that is merely the rationalisation of murder. That is the very basis of the state throughout history.

quote:

---

While some may be or may have been 'freedom fighters' I would tend to think that anyone who would target civilian children of populace more of an enemy of that populace than a civil militia liberator.

---

Which raises the question - has that actually happened, or is that just more propaganda? I have been meaning to ask Tal for a citation of this event he has referred to so frequently, becuase it is prima facie absurd.Purposefully killing children can meet few military objectives. If there has been an even in which someone purposefully killed children, for no military reason, then they should be seen as a psychopath, not as acting on behalf of any organisation. If they are attempting to achieve a military objective, such as breaking the morale of an enemy group, then they can still be treated in every respect as a soldier - certainly every bit as much as pilots who nuked Japan. And if what they were trying to do is kill one or sevral of the occupying army, who happened to be surrounded by children, then of course it is "mere" collateral damage, perfectly validated by both US and Israeli precedent.

quote:

---

Being a soldier does not make you a murder just because the unsanctioned act of your government.

---

It does, I'm afraid, both in my eyes and the law. The individual soldier is responsible for the legality of their own actions - this was the precedent established at Nuremburg, pushed for by American lawyers. All coalition troops in Iraq are personally and individually responsible for their crimes, case closed. They are murderers.

quote:

---

Despite the reasons for the war, there will always be these things.

---

Of course thats true. But then again, I am not the one denying it, the US is, by denying the legimitimacy of global resistance to American aggression and of freedom fighters seeking the liberty of their land.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-20-2005 08:41 AM

quote:

---

Has anyone EVER told you that you were not allowed to say what you wanted?

---

Yes, although I specifically referred to SELF censorship. Perhaps that was in one of the posts you were unable to read becuase your disdainfully curled lip blocked the view.

quote:

---

You are, in effect, censoring yourself because you are not delivering your message in a way that anyone is willing to listen to.
That's your problem, not anyone else's.

---

Shrug. By the bullet or the ballot, by the bible or the gun - whatever which way, freedom must come.

quote:

---

You are often rude and mean in your posts, contra, and this makes you less likely to be listened to. THAT is being unable to engage in the real world. It repels people.

---

No, you CHOOSE to interpret my words as rude becuase you cannot face reality. you have made this abundantly clear by pointing to my comparison of the US to the NAzis as ridiculous, and by claiming I should not confront military personall with the fact that they are murderers. You IMPOSE rudeness where there is in fact mere opinion.Even if present, rudeness is an insuficient excuse for playing "hear no evil". If you cannot converse with those who oppose you, then you must resign yourself to settlement by force of arms. Is that a great improvement, do you think? You'd rather have people blown limb from limb than talk because your precious bourgeois platitudes have been trampled?So be it.

quote:

---

You went over US history, and some European, in school, Not much Russian, Chinese, or Latin American. You couldn't name ten US interventions in Latin America.

---

Actually, in college I took a great history course that covered China, Mongolia, India, and a bit of Japan.But, no, in publc school I didn't get a good history education at all.Why is this relevant?

quote:

---

Can you name ten interventions in Latin America off the top of your head Schraf?

---

Nope.Can you name 10 Native American tribes off the top of your head?

quote:

---

Corollary question: Why does the US not teach an accurate account of its military history?

---

Since the public schools in the United States are not run by the federal government but by local government, there is a great deal of variation in what is taught. That said, the textbook approval process is done by a small group of pretty conservative people in Texas, so a lot does get left out if the teacher sticks mainly to the textbooks.Once kids get to college, however, history courses are not at all likely to sugarcoat anything, probably because they are taught by real historians, not football coaches. Indeed, that was my experience at University.Why does any country not teach an accurate account of it's military history, or gloss over the less seemly parts of it's past?

quote:

---

Can you name 10 Native American tribes off the top of your head?

---

Yes I think so. Dakota and Lakota souix which I understand were separate groups, although thse may more properly be federations. Brule, Arapaho, cherokee, apache, cipoway? something like that, mohican of course (you did not specify plains indians or anything), nez perce, navaho, the anasazi, blackfeet, and the unnamed mound-builders of the east coast. There are more on the tip of my tongue. I assume you mean only NORTH american native tribes so have not mentioned any of the central and south american tribes. Hows that?

quote:

---

But, no, in publc school I didn't get a good history education at all. Why is this relevant?

---

It is relevant because Americans do not recognise the actual activities of their state. This is way so many Americans are sufficiently deluded to think it is a force for freedom rather than an aggressive imperialist state. And this is sufficiently common that this ignorance can be identified as a generalizable feature of American culture. This is good solid evidence for the fact that Americans live in a media bubble that shileds them from the facts - they America is the most thoroughly propagandised state on thenplanet today.And central American interventions are a goods test because they are proximate, and some of the dirtiest. So lets have a look at what you could have nominated, shall we?

quote:

---

1846
The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.
1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.
1855
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.

​

"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News

​

He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.

​

"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker

​

1856
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.
1898
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
1903
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.
1903
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.
1904
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.
1905
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Daz crush a strike in Sonora.
1905
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.
1906
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.
1907
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.
1908
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.
1909
Liberal President Jos Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Daz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.
1910
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Daz regime.
1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dvila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
1912
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.
1912
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Daz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Daz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.
1914
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.
1915
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.

​

"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation

​

1916
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.
! 1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.

​

"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin

​

1917
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.
1917
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.
1918
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.
1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.
1925
U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.
1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.

​

"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --NYT, 1928

​

1929
U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

​

"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds

​

1930
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic.
1932
The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martnez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).
! 1933
President Roosevelt announces the Good Neighbor policy.
1933
Marines finally leave Nicaragua, unable to suppress the guerrilla warfare of General Augusto Csar Sandino. Anastasio Somoza Garca becomes the first Nicaraguan commander of the National Guard.

​

"The Nicaraguans are better fighters than the Haitians, being of Indian blood, and as warriors similar to the aborigines who resisted the advance of civilization in this country." --NYT correspondent Harold Denny

​

1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.
! 1934
Platt Amendment repealed.
1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.
! 1936
U.S. relinquishes rights to unilateral intervention in Panama.
1941
Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia deposes Panamanian president Arias in a military coup-- first clearing it with the U.S. Ambassador.

​

It was "a great relief to us, because Arias had been very troublesome and very pro-Nazi." --Secretary of War Henry Stimson

​

1943
The editor of the Honduran opposition paper El Cronista is summoned to the U.S. embassy and told that criticism of the dictator Tiburcio Caras Andino is damaging to the war effort. Shortly afterward, the paper is shut down by the government.
1944
The dictator Maximiliano Hernndez Martnez of El Salvador is ousted by a revolution; the interim government is overthrown five months later by the dictator's former chief of police. The U.S.'s immediate recognition of the new dictator does much to tarnish Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in the eyes of Latin Americans.
1946
U.S. Army School of the Americas opens in Panama as a hemisphere-wide military academy. Its linchpin is the doctrine of National Security, by which the chief threat to a nation is internal subversion; this will be the guiding principle behind dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Central America, and elsewhere.
1948
Jos Figueres Ferrer wins a short civil war to become President of Costa Rica. Figueres is supported by the U.S., which has informed San Jos that its forces in the Panama Canal are ready to come to the capital to end "communist control" of Costa Rica.
1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmn, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.

​

Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life

​

The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.

​

"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon

​

1957
Eisenhower establishes Office of Public Safety to train Latin American police forces.
! 1959
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba. Several months earlier he had undertaken a triumphal tour through the U.S., which included a CIA briefing on the Red menace.

​

"Castro's continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." --Time, of Castro's warnings of an imminent U.S. invasion

​

1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.
1960
The Canal Zone becomes the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency training.
1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.

​

"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup

​

1960
Guatemalan officers attempt to overthrow the regime of Presidente Fuentes; Eisenhower stations warships and 2000 Marines offshore while Fuentes puts down the revolt. [Another source says that the U.S. provided air support for Fuentes.]
1960s
U.S. Green Berets train Guatemalan army in counterinsurgency techniques. Guatemalan efforts against its insurgents include aerial bombing, scorched-earth assaults on towns suspected of aiding the rebels, and death squads, which killed 20,000 people between 1966 and 1976. U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that it was at his instigation that "the technique of counter-terror had been implemented by the army."

​

"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio

​

1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Baha de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep Joo Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan Jos Arvalo was favored to win.

​

"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964

​

1964
Joo Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
! 1964
The free market in Nicaragua:

​

The Somoza family controls "about one-tenth of the cultivable land in Nicaragua, and just about everything else worth owning, the country's only airline, one television station, a newspaper, a cement plant, textile mill, several sugar refineries, half-a-dozen breweries and distilleries, and a Mercedes-Benz agency." --Life World Library

​

1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

​

"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later. Now why would he say that?

​

1966
U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.

​

"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program

​

1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.
1968
Gen. Jos Alberto Medrano, who is on the payroll of the CIA, organizes the ORDEN paramilitary force, considered the precursor of El Salvador's death squads.
! 1970
In this year (just as an example), U.S. investments in Latin America earn $1.3 billion; while new investments total $302 million.
1970
Salvador Allende Gossens elected in Chile. Suspends foreign loans, nationalizes foreign companies. For the phone system, pays ITT the company's minimized valuation for tax purposes. The CIA provides covert financial support for Allende's opponents, both during and after his election.
1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist Jos Napolen Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)
1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.
1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.
! 1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.
! 1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.

​

"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan

​

1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.

​

"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan

​

1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efran Ros Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ros Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ros Montt. The new President, Oscar Meja Vctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

---

But as noted, most Americans could not name 10 from this vast smorgasbord. America's self identity is a constructed, apologetic fiction.Heres another question for you: what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Starter for 10?This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-20-2005 08:54 AM

quote:

---

Why does any country not teach an accurate account of it's military history, or gloss over the less seemly parts of it's past?

---

But do they? Germany is sorry about WW2. Japan has been demilitarised since that time and that is only recently being reconsidered.But the major difference is this: no other state claims the self righteousness that the US claims to imposes its way on other states by force of arms.You should be much more aware of the facts of your own militarism. The simple reality is that when Americans talk about their state being a force for freedom and democracy they are speaking from a position of near-total ignorance.FliesOnly remarked that when I said that the US was the enemy of democracy worldwide I was making an extreme and provocative claim. Why, just because it clashes with your domesetic propaganda? Most Ameroicans have no idea about the blood on their states hands, and it is this ignorance that allows them to wallow in the delusion of being the "leaders of ghe free world", rather than a state that has made every effort in its power to support friendly dictators. Its about time you all woke up and started dealing with your state as it really is, not as you would wish it be.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-20-2005 09:03 AM

quote:

---

Yes,

---

Really? Where? Please cite the post number and/or quote the poster's words.I know I cartainly have never told you that you couldn't say anything you wanted to.I simply reminded you of the consequences of rude and abrasive behavior.

quote:

---

although I specifically referred to SELF censorship. Perhaps that was in one of the posts you were unable to read becuase your disdainfully curled lip blocked the view.

---

Rude.That means I am taking you less seriously because resort to rudeness implies that you have no rational argument.You really do have no tact, Contra. Poor social skills.

quote:

---

Shrug.

---

Then don't complain when nobody listens to you.

quote:

---

By the bullet or the ballot, by the bible or the gun - whatever which way, freedom must come.

---

Gee, I wish I was free of your rudeness and bombast.

quote:

---

No, you CHOOSE to interpret my words as rude becuase you cannot face reality.

---

You are a baby-eating communist, intent on destroying the United States. You are a hater of freedom and justice.I'm not being rude, there, Contra, and if you interpret those words as rude, then it's just because you have been immersed in communist propaganda and connot face reality.

quote:

---

you have made this abundantly clear by pointing to my comparison of the US to the NAzis as ridiculous, and by claiming I should not confront military personall with the fact that they are murderers.

---

No, I never said you shouldn't do that. I simply pointed out the consequesnces of doing that with the supreme lack of tact that you insist upon displaying would not win you any converts to your point of view.What is your goal?Do you want to be alone on your little mountain, shouting to nobody?

quote:

---

You IMPOSE rudeness where there is in fact mere opinion.

---

Spin, spin, spin.Man, you could work for the Bush White House with the skill with spinning you have, Contra.

quote:

---

Even if present, rudeness is an insuficient excuse for playing "hear no evil".

---

Yes, it DOES suck that you cannot force people to listen to you, isn't it?Welcome to society.

quote:

---

If you cannot converse with those who oppose you, then you must resign yourself to settlement by force of arms.

---

Have you seen some of the arguments holmes and I have had? Long, drawn out ordeals where neither of us gave an inch? We were not rude to each other, yet we opposed each other AND had conversation.Just because you cannot imagine not being rude and abrasive doesn't mean that it is impossible.No, contra, we WANT you to converse. We have told you that when you post lots of facts and interesting analysis instead of venting your spleen all over the board, we like your posts.What you do when you are rude and abrasive is to DISCOURAGE CONVERSATION. Then it becomes a mud slinging match of traded insults, which is boring and stupid.Did Nelson Mandela win converts by telling his opponents they were murderers every chance he got?

quote:

---

Is that a great improvement, do you think? You'd rather have people blown limb from limb than talk because your precious bourgeois platitudes have been trampled?

---

What is your goal?To shout from the top of your little mountain, shouting to nobody?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-20-2005 09:24 AM

quote:

---

But do they? Germany is sorry about WW2. Japan has been demilitarised since that time and that is only recently being reconsidered.

---

...and Japan has also only recently even allowed discussion of the "comfort women", which was previously completely swept under the rug as if it had never happened.No country is immune to it, Contra, although I do admire Germany for facing it's past.

quote:

---

But the major difference is this: no other state claims the self righteousness that the US claims to imposes its way on other states by force of arms.

---

Except for China.And the Soviet Union....both Communist nations, I might add.Not that I approve, mind you. I don't like that the US meddles as much as it does, and I have always been 100% against the Iraq invasion.

quote:

---

You should be much more aware of the facts of your own militarism. The simple reality is that when Americans talk about their state being a force for freedom and democracy they are speaking from a position of near-total ignorance.

---

I agree that most Americans are ignorant of our military history, but I am not.

quote:

---

FliesOnly remarked that when I said that the US was the enemy of democracy worldwide I was making an extreme and provocative claim.

---

No, you said that the US was just like Nazi Germany.Anyone with half a brain knows that bringing up Nazis or Hitler in a discussion is likely to be provocative. When you compare the US to Nazi Germany, what do you expect the response to be, honestly? Please don't play dumb, contra, it's embarrasing.

quote:

---

Why, just because it clashes with your domesetic propaganda? Most Ameroicans have no idea about the blood on their states hands, and it is this ignorance that allows them to wallow in the delusion of being the "leaders of ghe free world", rather than a state that has made every effort in its power to support friendly dictators.

---

HAVE YOU BEEN READING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT HOW WE OPPOSE OUR GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS?????What is wrong with you?

quote:

---

Its about time you all woke up and started dealing with your state as it really is, not as you would wish it be.

---

No shit, Sherlock, what do you think holmes and I have been talking with Tal about in this very thread?Haven't you read a single thing I have read in any of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war threads?You know, I really do think you DO want to be all by yourself on the top of a mountain.

A reply to message 156 would be much appreciated, Tal.

quote:

---

I simply reminded you of the consequences of rude and abrasive behavior.

---

... which are fictions of your imagining, depending as they do on the facts I cite not being facts.

quote:

---

That means I am taking you less seriously because resort to rudeness implies that you have no rational argument.

---

Soon you'll be able to curl your lip over your eyebrows, then.

quote:

---

Then don't complain when nobody listens to you.

---

THEN DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN PEOPLE BLOW UP YOUR BUILDINGS.

quote:

---

You are a baby-eating communist, intent on destroying the United States. You are a hater of freedom and justice.

---

Yep, I certainly get accused of that a lot. In fact, its one of the more common responses as soon as an American finds out I'm a commie.

quote:

---

I'm not being rude, there, Contra, and if you interpret those words as rude, then it's just because you have been immersed in communist propaganda and connot face reality.

---

Cool. Go on and show the evidence for your claims then, and I'll decide whether you are advancing a genuine criticism or just trying to be offensive. On your marks, get set, GO....

quote:

---

What is your goal? Do you want to be alone on your little mountain, shouting to nobody?

---

Schraf, as I have pointed out before, I'm not the isolated one here. I am a member of a political party thousands strong, and a movement many many millions strong. I have allies in every country on the planet. It is the US that is isolated, and the reason for this is its insistence in debating only with those who believe the same nonsense the US does, and demonizing anyone who doesn't.

quote:

---

World fears new Bush era
...
A poll of 21 countries published yesterday - reflecting opinion in Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia and Europe - showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years.

​

Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who considered him a positive force.

​

The survey also indicated for the first time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in general.

---

World fears new Bush era | World news | The GuardianFeeling chilly on that peak yet?

quote:

---

Have you seen some of the arguments holmes and I have had? Long, drawn out ordeals where neither of us gave an inch? We were not rude to each other, yet we opposed each other AND had conversation.

---

And I have plenty of discussions with other people on many fora in which I am NOT called an extremist, an exaggarator, or someone being deliberately rude. That only happens when confronted by Americans, in relation to their fictional self-image. The first response is usually that I am an "anti-American" and it goes rapidly down hill.

quote:

---

No, contra, we WANT you to converse. We have told you that when you post lots of facts and interesting analysis instead of venting your spleen all over the board, we like your posts.

---

No, you most certainly do not: what you do is insist that anything that contradicts your apple pie imagery is deliberately offensive. When I tell you I think that the US is directly comparable to Nazi Germany you insist that I am venting my spleen RATHER THAN providing an analysis. If you WANT analysis, start bloody paying attention when you get it.

quote:

---

Did Nelson Mandela win converts by telling his opponents they were murderers every chance he got?

---

Mandela you will recall spent 27 years in prison and had little opportunity to say anything. But certainly, at the Rivonia trial, he had no hesitation calling a spade a spade:

quote:

---

PROSECUTION: And in your opinion is the possibility of this violence to which you refer therefore heightened - increased?

​

MANDELA: Oh, yes; we felt that the Government will not hesitate to massacre hundreds of Africans in order to intimidate them not to oppose its reactionary policy.

---

No euphemisms here, you'll note.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-20-2005 09:58 AM

[quote] No country is immune to it, Contra, although I do admire Germany for facing it's past.[/qupte]Exactly so. And yet the US position is that it IS immune - that is why it insists that any prosecution under the war crimes convention could only ever be brought for malicious political reasons. That in fact is the gulf between Europe and America - Europe has learned those lessons, and the US has not.

quote:

---

Except for China. And the Soviet Union.
...both Communist nations, I might add.

---

Umm, or neither being communist definitions, if you pay attention to the material facts. Both were/are state capitalisms.

quote:

---

I agree that most Americans are ignorant of our military history, but I am not.

---

Fair enough. How about a joust at the Tonkin incident then? A full ten points, you can't ask fairer than that.

quote:

---

Anyone with half a brain knows that bringing up Nazis or Hitler in a discussion is likely to be provocative. When you compare the US to Nazi Germany, what do you expect the response to be, honestly? Please don't play dumb, contra, it's embarrasing.

---

DO THEY KNOW? The I must not have half a brain, becuase I could have sworn that they were an actual historical phenomenon, you know, the kind of thing referred to as "a warning from history". Thats abbit useless if you want listen to the warning, isn't it?I have in fact confronted this point before and will do so again - this is direct anti-intellectualism, the suppression of relevant data for politcally correct purposes. And just to demonstrate that this is not my opinion alone, I will REPOST the link I provided the last time this arrogant slur was made against my person:

quote:

---

What has happened is the elevation of Hitler and the Nazis. We have inadvertently appointed them as examples of extreme evil, so monstrous and so inhumane that they are forever alienated from the experience of the rest of the species. And by doing that, we deny ourselves the much more useful opportunity to recognize the much more horrific truth -- that there is a little Nazi in each and every one of us; it's that reptilian core of being that exists with dispassionate selfishness inside every creature that has climbed up the evolutionary ladder.

​

By denying that the Nazis were human, by setting them outside the definition of humanity, we deny ourselves the opportunity to recognize that the natural human tendency to define others as enemies, as vermin, as untermenschen, as kikes and niggers and ragheads and homos -- that's the root of evil, the alienization, the distinguishing of others as outsiders. Once we make the distinction that they are not us, it is okay for us to do things to them. As Solomon Short once said, "Those who divide us into us and them, automatically become them." When we classify the Nazis as demonic, we become Nazis ourselves. Why? Because when we deny the humanity of those who became Nazis, we blind ourselves to our own potential ability to commit evil acts, and thereby make such acts inevitable.

​

But of course, you say, the Nazi comparison is inappropriate, because after all, after all is said and done, we know we're not evil. We're the good guys. Why are we the good guys? Because we say we're the good guys. Because God is on our side. Because we're Christians. Because Christ died for us, so we're redeemed. Blah blah blah. We pile the bullshit higher and higher. And that's how we justify the acts we commit that we would call evil if the bad guys did them.
...
The reason for bringing this up is that I've been thinking about the lessons that we should have learned from Hitler and the Nazis and have apparently failed to learn. But I can't even share those thoughts without someone somewhere invoking Godwin's Law.

---

Inspect it for yourself at: http://www.gerrold.com/samizdat/page.htmAnd this guy is a Conservative! So here you are in all your self-righteous glory insisting yet again that I don't mean what I say I mean in your self-righteous opinion and therefore I can be dismissed - and thus YOU opt out of the dialogue, the conversation. YOU censor the things you don't want to hear even before you discuss them, and then arrogantly accuse me of provocation.Remember that little prable about the log and the speck?

quote:

---

HAVE YOU BEEN READING WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT HOW WE OPPOSE OUR GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS

---

No I don't recall seeing any. By all means, recount the marches, the resistance. Only 2 people voted against the reinstatement of Condoleeza Rice, and the only grounds I saw Kerry complain about where the number of AMERICAN casualties.

quote:

---

Haven't you read a single thing I have read in any of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war threads?

---

This is a non-sequitur; at no point did I suggest you were a supporter of Bush. But America is not much more like Nazi germany today than it was under Clinton - a little more, yes, but the problem is substantially deeper than just the president (indeed, if it were just the president the comparison would be totally invalid). The problem is not the Bush administration, the problem is a national populace so psychotic that it approved the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.And as long as you insist that realistic comparisons with historical precedents are unacceptably provocative, you are serving as an apologist for US imperialism and censoring the debate.

Agreed. I know many who think that the fact that this happened is terrible. Some are even republicans which made the outcome of the election even more confusing for me. Bush sucks. He didn't listen and was not wise it his decisions. Congress is equal in blame as well. We live in trying times in the US no dispute. Even a republic can tend toward absolutism. If not limited by birthright we are restrained from completely eliminating absolutism by the socio-economic barriers to political influence. Anything system that has a central form of government, even if elected, has the ability to tend toward absolutism. I fail to see why this makes the US special or worse in any way.Also, the US has always been a militaristic empire from its conception. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of US history. Not that this is justification though. We must be careful not to say that just because we are this way it does not mean that we should continue this way. That being said, it is folly to conclude that the US is alone in this regard either now or in the past. We were not the first and will not be the last. Abjection directed only at the US for its history and its current circumstance is ultraism. You seem to be an all or nothing person. Why should a movement that made such great strides be considered a failure just because the ultimate goal, death to racism, was not achieved? I would not call desegregation and the end to Jim Crow a little change. The foundation was laid for the healing of over 200 years of racism. To think that this was going to be fixed by one movement in one decade is ridiculous. The fight against hatred is a constant battle requiring the vigilance of all people. To say that nothing changed or that the civil rights movement was a failure is total absurdity. To expect a single movement to completely change the landscape of all types of emotional hatred in a country is the paramount of being unreasonable. Giant leaps were made but not the total abolition of racial hatred or all hatred for that matter. You seem to be very much intransigent about things. If you wish to start a new thread to discuss this I will join you there as this is beginning to get off topic. Democracy does not grant protection from fascism. Your comparison is erroneous though I will humor a response. Not to say that the US system is flawless but we do have a checks and balances system that, as far as I know off the top of my head, had not been duplicated by Germany in the early 20th century. I do believe that if it he could George Bush would directly and promptly turn this country into a theocracy. Abortion would be illegal, censures would turn into marshals, etc. The minority power, even if impotent to stop many of the things we now regret, has been effective in stemming the potential radical breeches of our Constitution. The administration also still had to pander to "value voters" to get itself re-elected this time. The neo-cons will probably continue this strategy to maintain power even though it limits the effectiveness of its political gains.Not to say that the US could not turn into a fascist nation but there are certainly more road blocks to doing so. While also off topic I will respond. You seem to be content simply to vilify the US in any arena despite the topic on hand. We need much election reform no doubt. I am part of an organization fighting for that right now. Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital worldRepublicans as well as Democrats were allowed observers in polling locations so even though the partisan influence is not desirable it is balanced. Any objection also has an appropriate defense. Even independents have recourse through both partisan and non partisan channels. Overall our election implementation needs an overhaul but that does not a villain make. No. It is just that the popular consent is currently that of the religious right. Not enough people in opposition took practice in their right to vote. A non vote is not a vote of no confidence like many seem to think. There has never even been a passing hint of nation wide insurrection from the military in American history that I have ever heard of. The stretch of your imagination has no bound. Certainly anything is possible but what you are suggesting will never happen in the current climate. If you choose to further the support of your speculation, please do so with a more robust case that includes more than the media opinion of one general. Start supporting your moral position that soldiering is equivalent to murder with reality and history then. Lets see the precedent for the act of soldiering and the equivalence with murder. So far, we have only seen the dispensation of your own personal moral which, like I said before, is admirable. I think you will find it hard to find many that would agree that killing in defense of an invasion constitutes murder. Good luck. Good start. While certainly true from a rational and moral standpoint it fails when examined by history and reality. It also makes no connection between being a soldier and being a murder. Furthermore, soldiers are rarely the ones defining the criteria. Rather society including the history of that society deems what is considered illegal killing and often the precedent is that killing in defense is not illegal. Show me how pervasive societies are where this is not true and you will have a measure of support for your position.Note that this does not mean my position is that a soldier cannot be a murder. Only that soldiering does not automatically make you a murder like you seem to be suggesting. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Children massacred by Iraq bombsWhile the allegation of 'targeting children' may remain, certainly being undeterred by masses of children is substantiated. I recall also an incident where a school bus was hit directly by an attack but I could not find the source. The point was that murder is happening on both sides of the coin. From American troops to the insurgency or rather "freedom fighters" if you think they are. The reason for killing children is not what is in argument here but rather that it is this act that actually constitutes murder when it occurs. My reason for saying what I said was to show that murder is a part of war rather than a part of merely holding the position of a soldier. Also, both sides commit the act so your assigning some kind of higher honor to the insurgency holds no merit. Murderers exist on both sides of the fight and that fact does not legitimize or invalidate any reasons for the fighting which is actually the topic of this thread. Great. You have just shown me law that says soldiers who commit the act of murder are considered murderers. I was not disputing this. Now show me then where in law an armed escort to a supply truck, a soldier remember, can be arrested for murder due to the actual murder of another soldier actually involved in armed combat. How is the one soldier who has actually not committed an act of murder still a murderer by the mere fact that he/she is a soldier? Show me where in law. What is held in your eyes, while may be interesting, has no bearing on what is considered truth.Then when you are done with that, show me in law where a soldier who kills while engaged with an active combatant is considered a murder. Also, please reference law and not your eyes.These are the things you need to fulfill your generalization that soldiering is equivalent to murder. Shooting back at a "freedom fighter" does not constitute murder because there is ambiguity to who is a "freedom fighter" and who is a "terrorist". Until you show otherwise, shooting and killing someone who was shooting at you first is not considered murder. Shouldn't the perpetrators of the overall action, the administration, be the ones held responsible to the world? Is not the political action itself an international crime rather than blanketing the responsibility of each intricate detail of the war to all involved?

---

Now is the winter of your discontent!
-- Stewie Griffin

Last time I checked I thought Germany had some pretty strict regulations about viewing webpages talking about WWII. Maybe you know otherwise?Not all in the US are ignorant of US history. Few whom you are arguing with probably are. The US is not alone in current or previous acts of not teaching or suppressing negative national history.

Contracycle:Post 202: No...because it is extreme and provocative. It’s an opinion, contracycle, not a fact. You often times provide great information, but if you present it in such a manner that discourages people from continuing to read...then of what value is your message? That's pretty much all we're saying.From post 206 we get: And don’t you complain when we invade Afghanistan.
And call me what you will, but in all honesty I would not have been AS upset if they would have used military weapons to attack military targets. But to fly a plane load of innocent civilians into buildings occupied by more innocent civilianscome on contracyclecan that be justified in your eyes?And in post 207: So where is there a functioning Communist Government that fits your definition? In what country are the ideals and beliefs you possess actually being put to practice? Where is this Country in which everybody gets along, racism does not exist, everybody has everything they want, and all disputes are settled with a big ole group hug? What country practices From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Show me the Government where all of the people completely agree with their leaders actions. Does such a place exist? Seriously, where is this egalitarian society? I would venture a guess that a true Communist Government will NEVER materialize.
People in power will ultimately do what ever they can get away with. You obviously hate the U.S. and blame us for all the Worlds problem. Tough shit I guess. Am I aware of the atrocities committed by the U.S. in the past (and present)by and large, yes. Am I proud of those acts? No. The world is now, and likely will forever be, a place of the have and have nots, with the latter trying to become a member of the former. I’m curiousdo any other Countries fit your comparison to the Nazis, or are we here in the U.S. globally unique in that regard?