Oh yeah, there's no (subversive, leftist guerrilla) liberal media bias....... :evil4:

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.> > >

so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

i'm constantly amazed when people try and justify the war as follows: we liberated iraq from saddam hussein, so let's forget the original failed objective, which was iraq's proliferation of WMDs and the imminent danger this posed to the US and the rest of the world, and concentrate on how the planet is now rid of this evil dictator. did i miss something here? did saddam hussein become bad only after the US broke ties with iraq after the 1980s? was it okay to give saddam hussein WMDs during the iran/iraq war? was he a soft, gentlemanly dictator back then? was the torture of iraqis okay back then because saddam hussein was our ally, and only our enemies can do nasty things? come on. there are a lot of baddies in the world--many of whom we cozy up to--and the war in iraq was not about ridding the country of a 'murderous despot.' it was a misguided attempt at shifting the balance of power in the middle east and gaining control of key natural resources: textbook neo-realist doctrine. let's not sugarcoat it with all of this bleeding-heart nonsense.

Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

The only people who cried foul during this operation were the ones who were trading Iraqi blood for oil. Those folks being France, Germany, Russia and the United State's bestest buddy in the whole wide world, Koffi Annan. They are the ones who raped the people of Iraq of their natural resources.

As far as WMD's are concerned. Do you think the months and months we wasted kissing the UN's a$$ gave 'ol Saddam time to hide his WMDs (which let's remind the class, the UN said he had and could not be accounted for?

And, by your opening salvo, you seem to imply that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Well, the trains ran on time under Mussilini, too.........

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.> If thats the case why won't Dubya go into Haiti ? (when the people of the country are begging for help)And with regard to the bit about ratified treaties - why does the US still support Isreal then ??(Oh, and you forgot to mention about the gaining control of of the black gold)

A byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Originally posted by Michael McDermottA byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Michael, whilst not agreeing with your previous posts i can see the merit in your agruments, but i have to take issue wiith this one.

Do you honestly believe your will be giving back the black gold to the Iraqis ???

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermottA byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

Michael, whilst not agreeing with your previous posts i can see the merit in your agruments, but i have to take issue wiith this one.

Do you honestly believe your will be giving back the black gold to the Iraqis ???

Yes, I do. It's in everyone's interest to have an economically strong Irag. That means the people being able to profit from their own natural resources. Will they need help in setting up infrastructure and distribution systems? Yes. Will a majority of that help come from American multi-national corporations? Probably so.

But what was it before? TotalElfFina. What did the people of Iraq get for Saddam's dealings with those European multi-national corporations? Palaces? Wood chippers? Acid pools?

What I'm saying is, while I fully expect whatever companies that help Iraq harvest their natural resources to make a profit, I also expect it to be a fair and equitable exchange.

I see horrible similarities here with Saudis - a totalitarien regime in place ignoring the democratic voice of the poeple who are only in power due to the patronage of America.

Any why ??? so Uncle Sam has a steady flow of oil.

And where did the majority of the 9/11 hijackers come from ??

Afganistan - nope

Iraq - nope

thats right, the friend of America Saudi Arabia

ps

I hate to think of the hatred the US are building up through their support of Isreal

Y'all are ensuring your gonna be looking over your shoulders for a long time

pps

I'm one of the few who actually likes the US of A

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built I'm one of the few who actually likes the US of A

For our pornstars?

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol For our pornstars?

nope, sports stars like A-Rod, Al Unser, Greg LeMond, Larry Bird, Walter Payton, Tony Hawks, Kenny Roberts, Sugar Ray Leonard, Willie Shoemaker et al

Originally posted by Michael McDermott

Pure post hoc rationalization.

If anybody cares to remember at this point, The original basis for Bush's threat to invade Irag was a demand that Hussein comply with weapons inspections. Not "liberation," not a despot, not giving back the "black gold to the Iraqi people, none of that post hoc nonsense. It was a demand that Hussein stop obstructing the weapons inspections. To the extent that Hussein played games with weapons inspectors, and played brinksmanship with Bush, I say he brought all this on his own head. I have no sympathy for him.

So Hussein ultimately agreed to cooperate with the weapons inspections. At that point, Bush changed his demand. Now it wasn't weapons inspections Bush wanted, but the removal of Hussein. Not the liberation of the Iraqi people, or giving back their black gold, but the removal of Hussein. As if that wasn't what he had a hard-on for from the moment he stepped into office. So the US demanded that Hussein abdicate. The US has never had, and will never have the authority to make this demand of any other nation. On that point, regardless of how loathesome a character Hussein was, Hussein was right to refuse our demand. Stupid, maybe, because it was clear beforehand that we were preparing for war.

[sidenote: Under its laws, Rome was forbidden to enter into any unjust war. Therefore, Rome was required to give another nation the opportunity to make peace. Rome gave other nations this opportunity by making a peace demand that was so outrageous, that no nation would have ever conceded. After Rome's "peace overtures" were rejected three times, Rome would then attack the other nation, because the war was then just. Sound familiar?]

In order to justify the war, Bush suddenly discovered that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs-- a claim that the CIA denies it ever made, and that the Bush team itself is backing away from now. So what we are left with is the post hoc rationalization that "at least the Iraqi people are free."

As far as Hussein being "the enemy of our enemy," there's a reason for that situation that you haven't explored. In the 1950's, the U.S. and the British (sound familiar anybody?) collaborated to overthrow the republican government of Iran, and installed the Shah. We did this because the Iranians nationalized their oil, which was owned at that time by the British. The Iranian political opposition to the Shah eventually united behind the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving the Shah into exile. Because we were the power behind the Shah, the Iranian people viewed us as their oppressors. The enemy of our enemy? The Iranian people viewed us as their enemy because we forced an unwanted, despotic ruler on them.

Finally, regarding us "giving back" the black gold, that's fantasy unsupported by fact. Read the UN documents. Who has control of the oil? The Iraqi people, or the United States? Read the documents, Michael, and then tell me where it says we're giving the control of the oil to the Iraqi people. We didn't let the Iranians control their oil in the 50's...Sound familiar anyone?

Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.

Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books. ______________________________________ I AM NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRAT

I DO NOT THINK THE FRENCH LEADERS,IRISH LEADERS,GERMAN LEADERS etc ARE ANY BETTE THAN YOUR LEADERS

I DO NOT THINK FRENCH MUTINATIONALS ARE ANY BETTER THAN US MULTINATIONALS.

get that straight..... man!

So the us overthrows democratically elected governments arond the world (e.g. chile, which you havent responded to), supports osama, saddam, and assorted scum around the world, gives them arms, they kill torture, etc, the us decide to turn a blind eye, then these lads get a bit to big for their boots in the eyes of the us, and so they turn on them.all the time they are funding osama and saddam (and MANY others) innocents get killed, then when they are fighting AGAINST them , innocents get killed. this is in the name of democracy. (that is the choice between 2 rich white union busting neo liberal warmongers).

"wake up america, youre dead"

the my enemy is his enemy therefore he is my brother idea is nonsense.

By that logic, the us and the plo should oppose the french states banning of the wearing of the haijb and other religious emblems in schools, and set up a united front against it. (bush oficially opposes it and sent a letter to that effect to chiraq, so too, im sure , does your average islamic extremist). the "suicde bombers and bush say no to religious ban" campaign. youre really talking bullshit here mike. ':('

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr "Liberal" has a different connotation in the U.S. than it does in the rest of the world. In the U.S. "liberals" are on the left of the political spectrum, while "conservatives" are on the right. Those terms themselves are unique to the U.S.; at present, the left in the U.S. would be considered center-right in the rest of the world. There is no real, viable left in the U.S. Yes, there are leftists, and leftist parties, but the winner-take-all (or in the case of G.W., loser-steal-all) election system we have creates a two-party system, and in order to win, a party has to appeal to the greatest number of voters. Thus, there is no viable left in the U.S. We have two center-right parties, or, in the words of Noam Chomsky, we have one party-- the Business Party-- with two wings-- the Democrats and the Republicans.In the rest of the world, as well as in U.S. academia, "liberal" has its proper connotation-- one who espouses laissez-faire capitalism.

Though in the UK 'liberal' came to mean someone in the middle-of-the-road who didn't want to choose between conservativism and socialism. Which is why it sounds like a contradiction in terms to me when I hear the term 'extreme liberal' used in the US. Extremely in the middle??

Really 'liberal' means someone who believes in individualism, in the individual persuing his/her idea of the good by their own means. As opposed to conservatives or socialists, both of whom are suspicious of individualism and believe in common values. Liberals in turn can be divided into 'welfare liberals' or pro-free market 'classical liberals', a division which I think came about because originally liberalism was in opposition to monarchism and so had no clear position on positive vs negative rights. Really much of both the right and 'left' in the US are liberals, just of those slightly different flavours. There are almost no socialists, so the only non-liberals are the, mostly religious, conservatives.

And then there's those who combine anti-immigrant, anti-gay attitudes with anti-big business views (like Pat Buchanon??) who I guess are bordering on being fascist.

// conservatives or socialists, both of whom are suspicious of individualism and believe in common values. //

"There is no such thing as society" Ms Tatcher

Originally posted by Michael McDermott And, by your opening salvo, you seem to imply that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Well, the trains ran on time under Mussilini, too.........

*You see, when the USA invaded Italy (and I still have huge gratitude for that) there was a strong democratic opposition to Mussolini's fascism. There was a National Liberation Front including all the parties (the same which opposed to his coup 20 years earlier) which would have written the Constitution and they set up partisan forces when the army refused to going on supporting Hitler's madness and the soldiers were being made prisoners and sent to concentration camps. So those who could excaped to the mountains (including many relatives of mine, I'm proud to say) and fought in the Resistance, in connection with the allied forces and the constitutional parties, and everyone knew after the end of the war there would have been democracy, a Western liberal democracy for a welfare state. It was clear from the start, even for the communists. In Iraq there's no such a thing, the 90% of the people are with the Iran-friendly ultra-fundamentalists who want an Islamic republic under the guide of the religious leaders. The only Western-friendly democratic opposition comes from the minority of the Kurds, though they're still a bit annoyed by the silence about the oppression of the Kurds in the NATO member Turkey, and how to blame them... You just have to understand there aren't people like Massud or Karzai in Afghanistan, who could guarantee a soft-Islam democracy, the Iraqis are hardcore and we'll notice that more and more. Just look at the terrorist attacks, the USA have been telling us they come from Saddam's supporters, that's bollocks, Saddam isn't worth a penny now, it's obvious they come from fundamentalists (helped by Al Qaida, much more friendly with them than with Saddam, who was a bit too un-religious with all his cigars, his alcoholic drinks and his women dressed in Western fashion) who are working to make the Americans retire and help the establishment of the new extreme Islam state. I hate to say "told you so". But well, told you so. :D And BTW, Saddam might have hidden his weapons, but if the Americans can't find any evidence they're just looking too terribly stupid. And don't blame the democrats, Bush had all the time to reorganize secret services, army and stuff. It's just that gasoline in the USA is much cheaper than in the rest of the world, and it must stay this way, no? So what's this story the French and the Russians have oil contracts with Saddam and we haven't? Let's take Iraq, then. That was easy, but now you've taken it, you can't keep it, that's the hard game. Good luck, but please please please will you learn history's lessons before it's too late?

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> A byproduct of the liberation was wresting control of the "black gold" from France, Germany, Russia and Koffi Annan to give back to the people of Iraq.

come on, man. you´re misinformed, cinic or naive. choose one. there´s no other way you´re saying that seriously. i refuse to think an informed, balanced and intelligent person could say that. really, i´m starting to worry about you. i guessed we only had totally opposite opinions, but now i´m sure there´s something more!

Just who, then, controlled the oil contracts during the last decade of Saddam's reign? Hmmmm? Who was enriching himself with the UN run "oil for food" program? Why don't you take a look. Just for grins.....

Originally posted by nearly there Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books.______________________________________I AM NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRATI DO NOT THINK THE FRENCH LEADERS,IRISH LEADERS,GERMAN LEADERS etc ARE ANY BETTE THAN YOUR LEADERSI DO NOT THINK FRENCH MUTINATIONALS ARE ANY BETTER THAN US MULTINATIONALS.get that straight..... man! So the us overthrows democratically elected governments arond the world (e.g. chile, which you havent responded to), supports osama, saddam, and assorted scum around the world, gives them arms, they kill torture, etc, the us decide to turn a blind eye, then these lads get a bit to big for their boots in the eyes of the us, and so they turn on them.all the time they are funding osama and saddam (and MANY others) innocents get killed, then when they are fighting AGAINST them , innocents get killed. this is in the name of democracy. (that is the choice between 2 rich white union busting neo liberal warmongers). "wake up america, youre dead"the my enemy is his enemy therefore he is my brother idea is nonsense.By that logic, the us and the plo should oppose the french states banning of the wearing of the haijb and other religious emblems in schools, and set up a united front against it. (bush oficially opposes it and sent a letter to that effect to chiraq, so too, im sure , does your average islamic extremist). the "suicde bombers and bush say no to religious ban" campaign. youre really talking bullshit here mike. ':('

Here ya go. It's the condensed version. If you want more, just ask.

To respond to Section 311 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (referred to hereafter as the Hinchey Amendment), the Intelligence Community (IC), led by the National Intelligence Council, reviewed relevant CIA records of the period predominantly from recent document searches; studied extensive Congressional reports regarding US activities in Chile in the 1960s and 1970s; read the memoirs of key figures, including Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger; reviewed CIA’s oral history collection at the Center for the Study of Intelligence; and consulted with retired intelligence officers who were directly involved.

This broad information base has given us high confidence in our responses to the three questions, which are answered directly below. The body of the report, however, provides much greater detail in an effort to tell the story of CIA involvement and put the answers into their proper historical context. The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities—the Church Committee—conducted in 1975 a thorough document review and interviews, and produced a report that still stands as a comprehensive analysis of CIA actions in Chile during the period from 1963 to 1973.

CIA’s response to the Hinchey amendment should be viewed as a good-faith effort to respond in an unclassified format to the three questions, not as a definitive history of US activities in Chile over the past 30 years.

Summary of Response to Questions

1. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the assassination of President Salvador Allende in September 1973.

A. We find no information—nor did the Church Committee—that CIA or the Intelligence Community was involved in the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende. He is believed to have committed suicide as the coup leaders closed in on him. The major CIA effort against Allende came earlier in 1970 in the failed attempt to block his election and accession to the Presidency. Nonetheless, the US Administration’s long-standing hostility to Allende and its past encouragement of a military coup against him were well known among Chilean coup plotters who eventually took action on their own to oust him.

2. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency of the Republic of Chile.

A. CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. In fact, many CIA officers shared broader US reservations about Pinochet’s single-minded pursuit of power.

3. Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to violations of human rights committed by officers or agents of former President Pinochet.

A. Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses following Allende’s ouster. Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military. The IC followed then-current guidance for reporting such abuses and admonished its Chilean agents against such behavior. Today’s much stricter reporting standards were not in force and, if they were, we suspect many agents would have been dropped.

So youre saying that aside from actually killing alliende, the cia/us state did everything in its power to have this democratically elected leader overthrown , then shrugs its shoulders when a raving madman takes over!

hmmmm then theres the cias old mates osama and saddam

Carry on NOOL's .Some great reading material here although i find a lot of it harder to follow than the X-FILES meets 24.I cannot hope to explain what i understand of the USA and it's policy abroad.Ever since i found out the NAZI's got you to the moon my heart went out of politics altogether.Me..i never even trusted my dad! :D Please note the above views are not altogether mine because my dad told me about this and maybe i was influenced too much but then again i don't think he tells the TRUTH.So take what i say with a pinch of salts.Never mix politics and crisps.........

Originally posted by nearly there So youre saying that aside from actually killing alliende, the cia/us state did everything in its power to have this democratically elected leader overthrown , then shrugs its shoulders when a raving madman takes over!hmmmm then theres the cias old mates osama and saddam

Yes and yes.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

oh, i'm sorry, so i suppose having a masters' degree in middle eastern politics makes me a 'dumb geo-politics person,' then? deary me, i'd better throw the towel in! i obviously have no idea what i'm talking about--better go read some ann coulter and become enlightened.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > Iraq was the enemy of our enemy in the 80's and therefore our friend. Don't play dumb geo-politics person and pretend it was anything otherwise. You know it, I know it, we all know it.>

oh, i'm sorry, so i suppose having a masters' degree in middle eastern politics makes me a 'dumb geo-politics person,' then? deary me, i'd better throw the towel in! i obviously have no idea what i'm talking about--better go read some ann coulter and become enlightened.

As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;)

Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?

Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

WIll this make 5?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

yes, i agree with you that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is an accurate portrayal of US policy towards iraq during the 1980s. however, this just reiterates the point that the united states remained silent while saddam hussein abused his own people as long as it benefited american national interest. of course we're not the only country to play this game, but to think that nobody will notice the hypocrisy when his human rights record suddenly becomes a belated excuse for a war is rather naive.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) > > Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?> > Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

I get the same reaction to Chomsky...

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > > > > > As for reading Ann Coulter, maybe you should. ;) > > > > Do you not agree that the axiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a common practice of foreign policy for thousands of years?> > > > Maybe "dumb geo-politics person" was somewhat harsh. I'm sorry for offending your academic sensibilities.>

apology accepted. ;)

but i'll never read ann coulter (hives...you know)!

I get the same reaction to Chomsky...

aah, chomsky.