In response to STING2's response to me (what???
) - sorry if somewhat late but I haven't enough time to keep up with this thread as I would like to.
No, I don't consder US intervention on a constant basis over 60 years as just one intervention. Basically because the scenarios in every case were different. However, there is a pattern which repeats itself over and is what constitutes in my view the normal rule of intervention.
STING2 said:
Do to the small scale of these interventions, it is questionable about their impacts on the civilian population and political situation.
Small scale by what standards? You seem to insist on evaluating interventionist policy by the actual amount of money invested by the US to perform it, and that is not related in any way to the point discussed. In any case a lot of damage can be done with a fairly low-budget operation. Chile was a CIA run operation, there was no actual deployment of US troops, but the systematic violation of human rights Pinochet's dictatorship incurred in during its almost 20 year rule is abhorrent and has deeply affected Chilean society. While it may be argued that Salvador Allende could have been pro-Communist since he was a socialist, Argentina was a victim of a similar operation but the government toppled was certainly not pro-Soviet at all - in fact it was rather a populist right wing "democracy" with a corporative fascistoid slant.
Even if it's clear that the coup was not particularly directed to the government in charge but rather aimed, amongst other goals, to terminate with left-wingers and their ideologists - the social and economic consequences of this dictatorship are still suffered nowadays. In this particular case, left-wing ideology was embraced by a minority with no real power as it can be seen from checking poll results during the rather short democratic lapses in the last 55 years. If that shouldn't suffice, a sociological analysis of Argentinian society shows that at every level there's always been a strong conservative sentiment and that the left has always rather been looked down upon.
There was absolutely no real threat of a communist takeover at the time in Argentina, nonetheless the CIA ran an operation during the last segment of the democratic rule backing an ultra right-wing official organisation called AAA (triple A) whose objective was to round up and hunt down left-wing activists. To finish up the job and wipe out whatever there was left (pardon the pun) remotely left-oriented a military dictatorship was put in charge. Alongside the actual left-sympathisers and activists a majority of innocent people were abducted, tortured and murdered, their possessions confiscated and their children given in adoption to military families (notice the monstrosity of this: kids being adopted by the very people who supported those who murdered their real parents) if not directly sold.
If this weren't to be considered enough, the main reason to help this dictatorship to power along with others at the time was not to do away with the left but rather to clear the way to mount a huge financial manoeuver from which the developed world would derive in the next 20/25 years great benefit: impose on these countries ultra-orthodox capitalist policies to rule their economies (much more radically orthodox than any of what was and is applied in the US or any other western nation) which would pave the way for dumping surplus western produce, allow multinational corporations buy run-down state-owned service companies in the 90s for almost nothing and charge fees unheard of in the rest of the world, sell at incredibly high prices tons of outdated military equipment (lots of Vietnam cast-offs went to Latin America) and place generous amounts of money in the guise of loans at outrageous interest rates. If it isn't clear by now: all this meant
serving foreign interests in detriment of local populations which are now worse-off than what they were then. This manoeuver was responsible for the origin of the greater portion of the present debt these countries owe the first world. Their present status of bankruptcy allows now creditor countries to do with them whatever they wish. Furthermore, it has to be noted that none of the creditors had a qualm in lending money to regimes which
a) violated systematically human rights
b) was more than obvious that would never use such money to make the conditions better for domestic population but rather to line their own pockets
c) were NOT voted by the people and thus the people (i. e. those who would have to pay those loans back) had no say whatsoever in deciding whether they wanted that money or not.
In some cases, it is likely that the events would have taken place with or without US and Soviet intervention.
That's trying to play clairvoyancy.
The money was spent in area's where the threat was greatest to the USA and its allies.
Threat?? What "threat" do Colombian guerrillas pose to the US? What threat were Grenada, Guatemala and Panama posing to the US or its allies??
They do have a point in that hundreds of billions of dollars has often been sent to many these countries over a few decades with nothing to show for it because of corruption in the country itself.
That slogan has been repeated over and over to justify the reluctance to send real aid money or to grant loans at decent interest rates to poorer countries. It's cynical to the core, since such corruption originated in governments helped to power or supported throughout their rule by the US and their first world allies when it was known what sort of administration they provided and this goes for both dictatorial and democratic regimes.
The fact is, disregarding politics for a second and just looking at the USA, it is in the interest and a benefit to the USA to aid thirdworld countries and see a reduction in their level of poverty. Reducing poverty cuts down on immigration, terrorism, and anti-democratic or anti-capitalist groups.
This is 100% logical, but you can't disregard politics. There seem to be stronger interests which override the application of this logical approach.
It is not right paint who the US supported as the devil while painting the otherside as white angels.
Who is guilty of this? I never said that the Soviets were "white angels", on the very contrary.
As far as evidence and proof about a threat, there are two sides to that debate and history is replete with examples of threats that were not taken seriously because that couldn't be "proven" with terrible results for the human race. To not be involved at all in many of these area's would be to let the Soviets have a free hand. Perhaps at that very moment not a serious threat, but what about 10 or 20 years down the road in a situation in which the world is on the verge of World War, suddenly these area's of less importance become important and your situation as far as how many allies one has in the region is effected and based on the actions one may have taken there 10 to 20 years earlier. The fact is, will never know for absolute sure if a Soviet take over was likely or not in some of these countries.
This is conjecturing again. However, as it is possible to cite examples in which the lack of pre-emptive action proved to be detrimental, it is obviously not possible to compare with cases in which actual pre-emptive action itself brought about terrible consequences.
In cases where the threat is uncertain, it is far better to be safe than sorry for the long term effects could be very bad in a future Global confrontation for the world.
Better safe than sorry? Try to give that argument to local populations adversely affected by foreign interventionist policies.
The fact is preventing or defeating Communist and Soviet influence in these countries was in their best long term interest.
In the first place, I believe that to decide what's in their best interest is every independent country's prerogative and not an alien power's, no matter how strong the said power is. In the second place, I could agree with you to a certaint extent, since the sort of capitalism some countries are subject to, is for many people no better than another sort of regime. It may be better for me or you, in fact I wouldn't fancy living under a communist rule at all, but I realise that the radically poor in certain capitalist societies (the extra-first world ones especially) are certainly not deriving any benefit from such a system, or at least in the conditions it is presently.
In most places where the US intervened in a major way, the local situation for people did improve. In area's of less interest and less US involvement, situation for people may have become worse, but this is for a variety of factors, and its not clear that such a small US intervention could effect the average standard of living of so many people.
The first is certainly true of Europe since a more than generous aid package went with it. What about Vietnam?
What is a small intervention? A low-budget one? I've already stated why this is beside the point. Regarding the interventions you call "small" because they did not require such a bombastic display and didn't toll on US budget so heavily, if you have the time and interest to find out conscientiously you'll see that the consequences of foreign intervention can be much greater than what you care to acknowledge.
Their are problems and events in these third world countries that would happen and exist with or without Soviet/US intervention.
Certainly, but there are other events and problems that happen/ed
because of foreign intervention.
It is incorrect to say that political persecution or economic problems would not of happened in country if the US did not intervene and other political forces, most likely pro=Soviet were allowed to secure power.
I never said such a thing since that would be conjecturing. The "other" political forces didn't have to be necessarily pro-Soviet, in fact there are political forces which apply less than orthodox capitalism i.e. more socially-oriented, in particular in some European countries like the Scandinavian ones which are not radically pro-American and nor certainly pro-communist. Besides this, during the 60s/70s there was an emerging third position which defied alignment with either of the powers and was readily crushed in various fronts by both of them.
US used its limited resources in the region to support the pro US side without any real confidence that the amount of support that was being given would actually have any effect on the situation at all.
Excuse me but that is rather naive. The US as the former USSR didn't support anybody without the absolute certainty that such support would be useful towards attaining the goal defined.
With limited resources, the US did the best it could with what was going to be a bad a situation no matter which side came to power.
More conjecturing.
In the case of Afghanistan and Islamic fundamentalism, the only group or groups available that were resisting Soviet Occupation in Afghanistan were groups that would be considered Islamic Fundamentalist. There was not a secular or non-fundamentalist group to support.
What is your point? If a nazi group would have been the only group available to fight against the Soviet occupation would it be excusable that the US had funded them to that end?? For this very reason it is perfectly licit to cite such support as an example of the US using fundamentalism to fend off Soviet penetration.
Contrary to popular belief, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan for politcal and economic reasons, not because they had been defeated on the battlefield.
True.
But the Shah and his regime of Iran were not Islamic fundamentalist, so this is not the USA using Islam fundamentalism as a bulwark against Soviet Expansion. In the 80s, the USA supplied Iran with a limited number of outdated Tow missiles in exchange for hostages. This one time weapons transfer had no effect on the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war and was not done to support Islamic fundamentalism.
I did NOT say that the Shah and his regime were fundamentalist - I would have to be fool for making such an assertion. I did NOT say either that US armament supply to Iran during the first part of the Iran-Iraq conflict, which BTW was somewhat more important than a "limited number of outdated Tow missiles", was to support fundamentalism. In fact I NEVER said that the US supported fundamentalism but rather that they USED it as an asset to fight communist spread in the Middle East. What I said regarding Iran is instead that such support which was designed to fend off a Soviet penetration went to a fundamentalist rule. This is another example of the way the US used fundamentalism to control pro-Soviet sympathies.
The Soviets wouldn't mind Iraq recieving some aid from the west, because its an opportunity for them to see and look at western designed weapons.
BUT the USA did not supply Iraq with combat weapon systems at any time during the 8 year Iran/Iraq war. Money for food was sent at one time as well as a single shipment of a few military trucks and transport helicopters.
There's evidence of US armament supply to Iraq during the second part of the conflict around 1986/87.
The Iraqi military is in extremely poor condition when it comes to its major weapon systems, because of the loss of support from the old Soviet Union because sanctions have been in place since August of 1990, and not because the Soviet Union collapsed. Iraq needs the weapons and had its own money to pay for it sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserves. Since the Gulf war which wiped out 2/3s of Iraqi military equipment holdings, Iraq has not been able to rebuild their military because of the loss of their supplier. What Iraq does to cope is to cannabolize parts from other vehicles in order to keep certain tanks and other equipment operational. The loss of Soviet support has had an unbelievable detrimental effect on Iraqi military training, readiness and capability. It effects Iraq's ability to defend itself from foreign attack, but would not effect Saddams ability to put down civilian revolt that would never have chance to topple him without the support of the army.
Sorry but I fail to see your logic. My own point was that if Hussein had had such close ties with the Soviet Union as you claim, especially related to armament supply, since his army as you later state is what allows him to retain power, he would have collapsed soon after the Soviet Union did. BTW If his armament potential is in such a state what threat does he pose presently to the West?
I understand your reasoning of why Islamic fundamentalism would be a good tool against Soviet expansion, but Islamic fundamentalism was and is not as widespread to be that powerful a force to prevent Soviet expansion. Most important though you fail to really site a case where this indeed happened. In Afghanistan we supported any resistence that was available. All that was available was Islamic fundamentalist, but we would have supported a non-fundamentalist or secular group as well, if one existed there. In the case of Iran, the Shah was not a fundamentalist, and the USA stopped supporting Iran after the Shah was thrown out. A one time sending, of a few Tow missiles that did not even remotely confer Iran an advantage on the battlefield in exchange for hostages, cannot be construed in any way as support for Islamic fundamentalism as a check against Soviet expansion.
It isn't powerless either and it has actual control over certain areas in the Middle East. In fact you yourself said that Afghan anti Soviet forces were 100% fundamentalist because the area is controlled by them. There's also a strong fundamentalist foothold in Pakistan, in fact the Taleban were trained there, not to mention Iran which is under fundamentalist rule. I did cite examples but they weren't good enough for you. As for the last section I already answered above.
The US does not support any government in the middle east with the exception of Afghanistan through the deployment of US troops. US troops are deployed in some of these countries for operations and monitoring of Iraq. I can put out numbers if you need to see them. In Israel the USA supports Isreal to prevent it from being overrun by Arab countries that have attacked it 4 times in the past 50 years. We also support Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian oppression that is fond of blowing up Israely teens in Disco's perhaps listening to U2! The Palestinians talk much of the Israely occupation by soldiers on the West Bank but do nothing to attack them. Instead they sneak into Tel Aviv and kill only civilian and non-military people going about their lives.
This rant replies to what? I did NOT say that the US supports any state in the Middle East, except Israel. What Palestinian
"oppression" ??? In what way are the Palestinians oppressing Israel? Maybe you mean Palestinian
"terror" . That's another story. As horrid and condemnable Palestinian (or any other) terrorist acts are, Israel's methods to defend itself have proved to be as terrorising as suicide bombing is. I mean that bulldozing civilian homes with people in them because terrorists were supposed to be inside as well and "were using civilians as shields" is as despicable and condemned under international law. It's disgusting to see that the US government supports such tactics. Re your suggestion that the Palestinians attack Israeli forces on the West Bank, in the first place they shouldn't have the need to since those territories were to be handed over by Israel under the Oslo agreement. In the second place, the Palestinian army is nonexistent in terms of fighting a real war against Israeli forces. It should also be noted that there can't be such an army since Palestine is not a state. With this I'm certainly not saying that I approve of their terrorist tactics.
If what you say is true about Saudi Arabia doing what the USA tells them to do, and there for the USA is resposible for aiding the Taliban in 1996, then I guess the USA is responsible for the suicide bombings in Israel that Saudi funds support and also takes part in giving funds to the families of suicide bombers which the Saudi's do as well. Sorry, I'm not buying that, not in a million years. Pakistan in addition to Saudi Arabia, have their own interest that they look after independently of the USA. Pakistan felt it was in interest to support the taliban to nuetralize what they felt was a threat from the Northern Alliance. Pakistan does not want to worry about having to put to many troops on its border with Afghanistan when war could break out with India's much larger army on its eastern border at any time. Pakistan in many ways is very independent of the USA and acts in its own interest. It was not the desire of the USA to see Pakistan develop a nuclear weapon, but they did despite protest from the USA. If Saudi Arabia was are servant, we wouldn't have any trouble going after Iraq and using Saudi Arabia as a base for are troops. Saudi Arabia is opposed to the strike on Iraq and is not allowing the USA to use its soil for a strike on Iraq. So Saudi Arabia nd Pakistan are very independent, Pakistan even more so, from the USA in their policy actions, and have interest that is sometimes of no concern to the USA are actually in conflict with the USA. Again, the USA pulled out of Afghanistan completely economically, politically, and militarily in 1989. Pakistan supported the Taliban not really out of love for their brand of Islam, but to destroy or subdue their enemy in the Northern Alliance, in order to focus more the military threat posed by India.
Re Saudi Arabia complying to US demands and requests, it's not "what I say", it's publicised and easily verifiable fact. World politics don't stick necessarily to transitive rules especially when facts occur at different times, that's why your conclusion about the US supporting suicide bombers isn't necessarily the logical derivation of the other fact. In the first place there's no proof of
official Saudi funding of suicide bombers' families. Secondly it must be noted in any case that the once monolithic Saudi royal family and entourage has suffered some internal cracks as of recent. Some members are presently in disagreement with an 100% pro-US policy, mainly because of religious itches. Remember that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arab who belongs to a powerful family and is virulently opposed to the West for religious reasons (at least it's what he claims). Such aid to the bombers' families may very well come from dissenting branches of the Saudi high-class rather than from the official pro-US rule. Such internal unrest together with the fact that Saudi Arabia is actually an Islamic country and has an important role within the Islamic world explains the fact that it has not openly supported the US initiative to attack Iraq. However this does not mean that once the attack is launched they will prevent US troops from operating (officially or not) from their soil. In fact presently US troops are deployed in Saudi Arabia in territories considered holy by the Muslims, something which is seen as an affront to the Islamic faith. On another account we're not discussing what motives moved Pakistan to support the Taleban, simply the fact that it did and that the US did not oppose such initiative in any way.
I have not ignored your statements about US interventions eslewhere, but simply doubted their impact and influence on the country of which there is little if any proven evidence that US intervention directly led to these events, and that these events would not of happened without US intervention is not proven either. Only biased liberal claims on this one.
There really IS evidence and certainly not only biased liberal claims. There's lots of material to research on, not to menton direct contact with locals if visiting the said countries. That certain events wouldn't have happened without US intervention, there certainly can't be any evidence on that - that's conjecturing again. But there is evidence of what certain rulers supported by the US did to the people. Maybe other rulers would have been worse or maybe not. We can only state our opinion on what actually happened and not on what would have happened if the course of action had been different.
In response to your assertion of the weakness of the South Korean economy, I present the folowing GDP, Export and Import statistics. In addition to this I will also show the UNs latest estimate on the standard of living for the average person in all countries in the world, ranking them, and where Korea is in that rank, and where it was 10 years ago.
I did NOT make any assertion on the weakness of South Korean economy! I simply said that GDP and economy growth rates do not always reflect accurately the real well-being of a nation. I said when giving examples that reflect the lack of reliabilty of such figures that such
could be the case of South Korea, but not necessarily that it was. What made me wonder is the emigration factor - not only to Latin America - I said ALSO to Latin America, a part of the world where the economies are certainly not in good shape. Such phenomenon did take place (I've seen some of it personally) mainly in the late 70s/early 80s and again in the early 90s. Something else which also may confirm a not so bright scenario are the figures you provided, in fact in the first half of the 90s their imports outweighed their exports and such a fact is as we know, certainly not awfully beneficial to a country's economy and the well-being of its people in the not so long run. South Korean economy has indeed picked up after the SE Asian crisis and it's more than possible that the US lent a helping hand since it's like you say, aiding an ally against the Chinese threat.
When it comes to monopolies, I realize there are monopolies outside the USA, but I was talking about inside the USA. I don't see where there is going to be this sudden concentration of oil reserves in US hands and even if that was so why that would lead to a monopoly? Private US companies control the oil and compete with each other. The Government has emergency supplies but thats it. You might conclude that Opec has a monopoly, but in actuallity they don't and Opec nations often compete with each other.
I'm talking about oil on an international scale. If the world's oil gets to be controlled totally by the US, even if there are different companies there will be a monopoly at state level. No, OPEC countries don't hold a monopoly since the US' own oil produce makes them almost self-sufficient. OPEC countries supply Europe mainly.
Again where is the high priced consumer goods that would be the natural result of a monopoly?
Again, I did not say that there is a monopoly NOW. I said that IF all of the world's oil is US (or whoever else) controlled there WILL BE a monopoly.
Globalism paves the way for competition
In theory.
capitalism, which is as the USA proves, the best economic system.
Yes, actually it is, provided you are not a marginal within the system.
Actually, Monopoly has more to do with Communism than Capitalism in theory. Capitalism is about competition and private ownership, monopoly is about the complete dominance of one group or organization over the market.
In theory yes I agree.
Government regulation of Capitalism prevents, occurances where monolpoly sometimes develop, and restores competition to the market by breaking up growing monopolies.
Well I adhere to this but it contradicts recalcitrant capitalist theories. Milton Friedman would have a fit.
Re the cease-fire issue and your reference to it in this and other posts I'll reply on my next entry.
Individuals who hold economic and financial power. Hmmmm....I may have some family members and friends of the family on that list, although I havn't seen them getting into black helicopters yet.
It wasn't "individuals" but groups, maybe the Davos Forum crowd should provide a clue. Black helicopters??? What for? There's no need to enact any sci-fi gimmick since it's pure white glove manipulation.
