Wor on Terror = Cleaning up your shit?

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-18 04:39pm

Axis Kast wrote:How could anybody have told you in 1980 that the result of support for Afghani rebels would be a fundamentalist theocracy willing to specifically support anti-American terrorists?

We only had problems in Iraq after 1991. Until then, Hussein had been a more or less solid investment.

The potential for something good to come of support for the Shah outweighed the potential for his overthrow and the rise to power of Islamofascism.

Pinochet was an attractive leader because South America in his day was awash with Socialist sympathies.

Afghanistan was, as with Iraq, a good investment considering the time and place.

I'm sure that's very comforting to the families of the thousands of people who died as a result. Like all of the Kurds Saddam slaughtered while we supported him, or all the people who disappeared under Pinochet, or those who died under the oppresion of the Shah. We supported all of these countries and ignored their actions, and now, are using those actions against them. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-18 04:57pm

Axis you seem to be spouting the exact sort of crap that propmted the little line at the end of my first post....

So, supporting an oppresive dictator is ok so long as he supports the US's policies at the time....
What ever happend to "democracy", there was one in Iran....but no...it wasnt up to the US's policy and so...bang....

Lesser of evils?
Dont you think perhaps it might be best for people in a nation to be the ones to decide which is the lesser evil for thier little corner of the world? Or is it that if people cant choose right then those who know better must choose for them?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-18 05:18pm

I'm sure that's very comforting to the families of the thousands of people who died as a result. Like all of the Kurds Saddam slaughtered while we supported him, or all the people who disappeared under Pinochet, or those who died under the oppresion of the Shah. We supported all of these countries and ignored their actions, and now, are using those actions against them. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Absolutely. But then again, I don’t see anything more than a moral problem here.

The United States has for the most part enjoyed great success in supporting questionable régimes. Our major failures are very few: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama. Our major successes far more numerous: Taiwan, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, Chile, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates.

And while from time to time unforeseen problems arise, one cannot deny that Hussein was neutered almost at once, the Soviet Union gored temporarily on Afghanistan (without which Bin Laden would have launched his attacks anyway), Khomeni more or less contained despite the Shah’s fall from grace, and Panama set to rights regardless of Noriega’s activities.

There are times we’ve waffled and it cost us. Case-in-point? Rhodesia. In 1980, we might have supported a sanctioned coup by Smith’s white government. In doing so, we’d have handed the election to black “compromise” candidate Bishop Abel Muzrowena rather than Robert Mugabe. It would have required simultaneous Rhodesian military attacks on terrorist ZAPU targets numbering in the thousands. The operation was called off largely because the US/UK were terrified of bad PR should the plan leak. Today, seven million Zimbabweans are starving, thousands – black and white – have been beaten or killed, and Robert Mugabe runs the country with an iron fist. Not to mention that we’re still trying to put Muzrowena’s successors back on top.

So, supporting an oppresive dictator is ok so long as he supports the US's policies at the time....

Yes.

Dont you think perhaps it might be best for people in a nation to be the ones to decide which is the lesser evil for thier little corner of the world? Or is it that if people cant choose right then those who know better must choose for them?

I want what’s best for my nation. If you get hurt in the process, that’s too damn bad.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-18 05:25pm

Darth Yoshi wrote:About Iran, the US wasn't too worried about the Gulf, since they would retaliate against any act of closing it and the Iranians knew it. That's why Iran tried to keep it a conflict between itself and Iraq. The US was more concerned about the spread of anti-Western theocratic gov'ts, which Iran tried to pull off in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and some other Gulf countries.

Actually Iran was quite willing to confront the US and provoke it, they attacked hundred of Gulf state freighters and tankers along with US warships and flagged merchantmen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-18 05:27pm

Kast...welcome to the line of reasoning that can justify terrorist attacks....

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-05-18 05:27pm

I want what’s best for my nation. If you get hurt in the process, that’s too damn bad.

It's sad you think this way.

A wronged nation has the nasty habit of growing into hating you. No matter how many times you tell them "Hey, it was nothing personal, it was just the solution that best suited us".

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-18 07:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:
So, supporting an oppresive dictator is ok so long as he supports the US's policies at the time....
Yes.

You really are a scary bugger.....so....if you were the one in the little third world country or the like who has just had a despotic oppressive asshole put in charge by an outside government are you going to be a bit pissed?

Dont you think perhaps it might be best for people in a nation to be the ones to decide which is the lesser evil for thier little corner of the world? Or is it that if people cant choose right then those who know better must choose for them?
I want what’s best for my nation. If you get hurt in the process, that’s too damn bad.

Carrying the above thought on.....would you blow up things in other countires, assasinate thier leaders, and terrorize thier civilians as a means to do what's best for your nation?

If so....

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-18 08:26pm

Kast...welcome to the line of reasoning that can justify terrorist attacks....

Geopolitics are governed by no moral laws. Justification is unimportant from the point of view of actually carrying out an action.

It's sad you think this way.

A wronged nation has the nasty habit of growing into hating you. No matter how many times you tell them "Hey, it was nothing personal, it was just the solution that best suited us".

Sad that I think this way? No. It’s odd that you don’t.

Did it ever occur to you that a vast majority of the five billion people on this planet justify American losses from one or another point of view? Do you truly believe that many Frenchmen or Russians or Germans would have lost sleep if Iraq had become another Vietnam? Do you actually expect that most of the people in the Middle East really do believe that terrorism is even morally wrong? There are other points of view outside your own.

And who said I was ignorant of the realities of my outlook? “Wronged” nations do hate the United States. But so does anyone else trying to get to the top. Some more than others. The trick is to “wrong” the right people, so to speak. Or not to wrong the right ones, if that makes any sense. While anything is possible, not everything is sensible.

You really are a scary bugger.....so....if you were the one in the little third world country or the like who has just had a despotic oppressive asshole put in charge by an outside government are you going to be a bit pissed?

Certainly.

Carrying the above thought on.....would you blow up things in other countires, assasinate thier leaders, and terrorize thier civilians as a means to do what's best for your nation?

If I could get away with it and I felt it truly improved the ends of my nation? Absolutely. Without much second thought about moral qualms.

Perhaps it hasn’t yet occurred to some of you. I am morally bankrupt on a political level.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-18 09:28pm

Fremen_Muhadib wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:How could anybody have told you in 1980 that the result of support for Afghani rebels would be a fundamentalist theocracy willing to specifically support anti-American terrorists?

We only had problems in Iraq after 1991. Until then, Hussein had been a more or less solid investment.

The potential for something good to come of support for the Shah outweighed the potential for his overthrow and the rise to power of Islamofascism.

Pinochet was an attractive leader because South America in his day was awash with Socialist sympathies.

Afghanistan was, as with Iraq, a good investment considering the time and place.
I'm sure that's very comforting to the families of the thousands of people who died as a result. Like all of the Kurds Saddam slaughtered while we supported him, or all the people who disappeared under Pinochet, or those who died under the oppresion of the Shah. We supported all of these countries and ignored their actions, and now, are using those actions against them. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Ok, just skimming through the posts at this point, but wtf is it with the absolute blame on the US for shit that ass holes do in the world. Bringing in the US for Saddam bs is about the same as bringing in Europe as an accomplise. Call a spade a spade but don't sugar coat your own bullshit. The US of A did some series shit in her day, but don't use that as an excuse for you're own compliance for the staus quo.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-18 09:28pm

Axis Kast wrote:The United States has for the most part enjoyed great success in supporting questionable régimes. Our major failures are very few: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama. Our major successes far more numerous: Taiwan, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, Chile, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates.

You left out a few failures, let me fill them in for you. I'm adding countries with either questionable regimes that the US supported, or democratically elected governments the US toppled.

China 1945-51
Greece 1947-1949
Phillippines 1945-1953
Guatemala 1953-1990's
Indonesia 1957-1958
Haiti 1959
Vietnam 1945-1973
Cambodia 1955-1973
Laos 1957-1973
Equador 1960-1963
Zaire/Congo 1960-1965
Brazil 1961-1964
Dominican Republic 1963-1965
Ghana 1966
Chile 1964-1973
Greece(2) 1967-1974
South Africa 1960-1980's
Portugal 1974-1976
Angola 1975-1980's
Honduras 1980's
Chad 1982
Fiji 1987
El Salvador 1980-1992
Haiti 1987-1994
Colombia 1990's-Present

Just thought I'd finish off your list for you.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-18 09:41pm

Fremen_Muhadib wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:The United States has for the most part enjoyed great success in supporting questionable régimes. Our major failures are very few: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama. Our major successes far more numerous: Taiwan, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, Chile, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates.
You left out a few failures, let me fill them in for you. I'm adding countries with either questionable regimes that the US supported, or democratically elected governments the US toppled.

China 1945-51
Greece 1947-1949
Phillippines 1945-1953
Guatemala 1953-1990's
Indonesia 1957-1958
Haiti 1959
Vietnam 1945-1973
Cambodia 1955-1973
Laos 1957-1973
Equador 1960-1963
Zaire/Congo 1960-1965
Brazil 1961-1964
Dominican Republic 1963-1965
Ghana 1966
Chile 1964-1973
Greece(2) 1967-1974
South Africa 1960-1980's
Portugal 1974-1976
Angola 1975-1980's
Honduras 1980's
Chad 1982
Fiji 1987
El Salvador 1980-1992
Haiti 1987-1994
Colombia 1990's-Present

Just thought I'd finish off your list for you.

Interesting? So we are responsible for everything? So you will have no problems with us just taking over the fucking world then, to solve all of these problems and to solve all of our fuck ups? Get a grip and show how the hell all of these thing are expressely the FAULT of the USA. It is easy to blame us, and not others expressely the people running these shit holes.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-18 09:44pm

Ok, just skimming through the posts at this point, but wtf is it with the absolute blame on the US for shit that ass holes do in the world. Bringing in the US for Saddam bs is about the same as bringing in Europe as an accomplise. Call a spade a spade but don't sugar coat your own bullshit. The US of A did some series shit in her day, but don't use that as an excuse for you're own compliance for the staus quo.

And let’s not forget that it was France who initially made it a caveat of their foreign policy to uphold and keep in the war the régime of Saddam Hussein c. 1985. No different than the United States. Not to mention that the Russians pioneered the concept of escorting Kuwaiti vessels and thus forced Iran to withdraw troops inland.

China 1945-51

You honestly believe that Chiang Kai-Shek was worse than Mao Tse-tung? That the People’s Republic of China should not have been preempted?

Vietnam 1945-1973

You believe that the United States should not have come to the aid of the South Vietnamese?

Chile 1964-1973

Pinochet was the better of two evils.

South Africa 1960-1980's

Cruel and unusual as they were, the whites of South Africa were eminently superior allies to the ANC as per our doctrine of containment.

Angola 1975-1980's

Jonas Savimbi’s goals were never worse than those of the MPLA until they transformed into a national government with a seat on the UN.

Colombia 1990's-Present

A fan of FARC, I see.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-18 11:26pm

Axis: your insane, first off you say that S. Africa where there was APARTHEID is a SUccess of the US? wow.

vietnam? are you joking? S. Vietnam was a dictatorship that murdered its own people and "suspects" completely unjustly. FREAKING MONKS SET THEMSEVLES ON FIRE TO PROTEST AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT. yes your damn right we shouldnt have gone in there gotten 52k americans killed and killed OVER A MILLION vietnamese to support a cruel and unjust dictatorship in a country that we created, when we could have had a unified, nationalistic, democratic vietnam had we actually taken the right action in 1945.

Pinochet better of two evils? who was the other evil? I mean pinochet was little better than hitler, he had his concentration camps, his mass murders, his secret police. How is this better than ANYONE? we are talking about a man who created concentration camps for god's sake.

you also list Israel as a SUCCESS of the US? you are talking about a country which maintains Apartheid, murders its own citizens, treats a portion of its citizens in violation of international law, and has violated more UN resolutions than anyone, except maybe the US itself. Ohh yea major success there...right.

Turkey is another great country we support, a country which refuses to take responsability for the armenian genocide OR EVEN ADMIT THAT IT HAPPEND!!!! a country with a laundry list of human rights violations, especially against the few armenians who they didnt kill in 1915 and the kurds.

Pakistan: yea that is working well, a country on the brink of nuclear war, great job there.

Knife: perhaps if you read what he stated, those are all the regimes that are monsterous that we support, or democratically elected regimes that we helped topple. Ie places where we destroyed democracy or helped it be prevented, all in the name OF democracy.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-05-18 11:53pm

You believe that the United States should not have come to the aid of the South Vietnamese?

I was talking about putting a dictator into power in the south, instead of allowing the scheduled elections that would have united vietnam. Many of the South Vietnamese people wanted unification with the North, but the US supported coup instead put dictator Ngo Dinh Diem, a fervent anti-communist who oppressed and murdered vietnamese citizens.

Pinochet was the better of two evils.

Allende was democratically elected, and very popular. A marxist yes, but he didnt kill the thousands of people like Pinochet did. Show me the evidence that Allende was a mass murderer who made thousands upon thousands of people dissappear, such as the evidence brought against Pinochet, and I'll believe Allende was worse.

Cruel and unusual as they were, the whites of South Africa were eminently superior allies to the ANC as per our doctrine of containment.

So, are you saying that the ANC was a communist organization? This of course justifies the assassination squads, discrimination, scientific experiments, and a number of other Hitleresque things that the US supported white government did to blacks during apartheid. Wouter Basson, for instance, was given funds by America. Is he what you had in mind as a superior ally? Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are inferior.

A fan of FARC, I see.

I'm a fan of human rights. Not to mention the fact that the drugs run out of Colombia aren't controlled by FARC, rather, they are controlled by the millitary. In fact, the president of Colombia was considered a leading Colombian drug trafficker during the Clinton administration. FARC does deal in drugs, but they are being targeted because they are leftists, and the Colombian government has been responsible for the deaths of 20000 people for "political reasons.

Interesting? So we are responsible for everything? So you will have no problems with us just taking over the fucking world then, to solve all of these problems and to solve all of our fuck ups? Get a grip and show how the hell all of these thing are expressely the FAULT of the USA. It is easy to blame us, and not others expressely the people running these shit holes.

I'm not blaming only the United States for these problems, I'm saying that we do plenty of dirty shit just like all of the countries who the US is criticizing for being human rights violators, or dicatorships, or supporting terror. What I'm saying is that the US was involved, and that it should take part of the blame for the screw ups, as well as the credit for the successes.

By the way, even if I withdrew all of the countries that Axis Kast disagreed with from the list, there are still 18 countries left on the list.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-19 01:13am

Knife: perhaps if you read what he stated, those are all the regimes that are monsterous that we support, or democratically elected regimes that we helped topple. Ie places where we destroyed democracy or helped it be prevented, all in the name OF democracy.

My point remains the same, is America resposible for everything that these asshats do, and if so, does that implicate those 'enlightened' countries of Europe that supported us if not depended on us to win the cold war. Its one thing to point out our fuck ups, its another to wash you're hands of any blame and pin it all on us.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-05-19 04:34am

Portugal 1974-1976

That's just wrong. In 25/April 1974, our own military took down the dictatorship, with absolutely no outside help. That period of two years corresponds to a time of political estabilization, with no blood shed, only strong confrontations between the communists (who wanted to leave NATO and become Soviet) and the rest of the political spectrum. The good guys won without any trouble and outside intervention. It is still rumoured that the CIA provided some information, but even if this were to be true then, by all accounts, it was a huge success (no blood shed and instant democracy).

The U.S political support of Salazar in all the previous years is much more questionable, obviously.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-19 04:45am

Knife wrote:My point remains the same, is America resposible for everything that these asshats do

Not necessarily, but if Bush is going to run around accusing people of being responsible for the actions of those they support (if they're called "terrorists"), then it would be hypocritical of the US not to take responsibility for the actions of the people it supports and has supported. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In other words, I think most people would be more inclined to accept this reasoning if Bush would shut the fuck up.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-19 07:13am

Many of the South Vietnamese people wanted unification with the North, but the US supported coup instead put dictator Ngo Dinh Diem, a fervent anti-communist who oppressed and murdered vietnamese citizens.

Of course, we later assassinated Diem.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-19 09:20am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Of course, we later assassinated Diem.

No the Diem was overthrown and killed by his own army.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-19 11:07am

Axis: your insane, first off you say that S. Africa where there was APARTHEID is a SUccess of the US? wow.

White South Africa was in its own right so great a regional superpower that Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki inherited a comparative giant even after severe economic malfunction. The fact of the matter is that the South African Defense Force under Magnus Malan was one of the world’s most effective fighting forces. Without their help, both Angola and Namibia would have been overrun in the 1970s by Communist forces allied to Fidel Castro in Cuba. Apartheid eventually had to go, but until the fall of the Soviet Union, change was simply not in line with the best interests of the United States of America. Keep in mind that we diverge. Your definition of “good” is letting a nation chose for itself in all things. My definition is service to the United States of America without seriously adverse after-effects. Keep in mind that your string of reasoning is as morally flawed as my own. China under Mao Tse-tung indeed!

vietnam? are you joking? S. Vietnam was a dictatorship that murdered its own people and "suspects" completely unjustly. FREAKING MONKS SET THEMSEVLES ON FIRE TO PROTEST AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT. yes your damn right we shouldnt have gone in there gotten 52k americans killed and killed OVER A MILLION vietnamese to support a cruel and unjust dictatorship in a country that we created, when we could have had a unified, nationalistic, democratic vietnam had we actually taken the right action in 1945.

South Vietnam might have been a dictatorship, but the average Southerner was far better off than his counterpart in the North.

So when the religious wing of any nation protests against an action or an institution, it’s immediately wrong? The monks would have let Communism sweep the nation if it was up to them.

Again, Vietnam served a purpose. We failed to achieve what was at the time an important goal. Don’t let hindsight fool you. The domino theory played out in Laos and Cambodia. Whether or not the Vietnamese were able to spread their ideology beyond that in the following years is irrelevant from the point of view of the people on the ground between 1950 and 1969.

Pinochet better of two evils? who was the other evil? I mean pinochet was little better than hitler, he had his concentration camps, his mass murders, his secret police. How is this better than ANYONE? we are talking about a man who created concentration camps for god's sake.

And you believe Communists would have differed very much at all?

you also list Israel as a SUCCESS of the US? you are talking about a country which maintains Apartheid, murders its own citizens, treats a portion of its citizens in violation of international law, and has violated more UN resolutions than anyone, except maybe the US itself. Ohh yea major success there...right.

Israel is a valuable ally of the United States of America, all its faults weighed.

Turkey is another great country we support, a country which refuses to take responsability for the armenian genocide OR EVEN ADMIT THAT IT HAPPEND!!!! a country with a laundry list of human rights violations, especially against the few armenians who they didnt kill in 1915 and the kurds.

A valuable NATO ally in a strategic location.

[quote[Pakistan: yea that is working well, a country on the brink of nuclear war, great job there.[/quote]

Led by a man who’s successfully diffused much of the hottest part of the conflict and is the best viable alternative to Islamofascism.

I was talking about putting a dictator into power in the south, instead of allowing the scheduled elections that would have united vietnam. Many of the South Vietnamese people wanted unification with the North, but the US supported coup instead put dictator Ngo Dinh Diem, a fervent anti-communist who oppressed and murdered vietnamese citizens.

A “unified election” would almost certainly have led to a Communist government. Unacceptable.

Allende was democratically elected, and very popular. A marxist yes, but he didnt kill the thousands of people like Pinochet did. Show me the evidence that Allende was a mass murderer who made thousands upon thousands of people dissappear, such as the evidence brought against Pinochet, and I'll believe Allende was worse.

The potential for Communism to spread in South America with Allende in control was considered very great. Pinochet at least kept a lid on things. Not to mention his timely deployment of Chilean troops to the Argentine border in 1982.

So, are you saying that the ANC was a communist organization? This of course justifies the assassination squads, discrimination, scientific experiments, and a number of other Hitleresque things that the US supported white government did to blacks during apartheid. Wouter Basson, for instance, was given funds by America. Is he what you had in mind as a superior ally? Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are inferior.

The ANC was avowedly a Communist organization.

It wasn’t because they were black that they were inferior. It was because they were disenfranchised and could not have within the necessary timeframe reforged a unified South Africa with as much power potential as the whites already had.

Don’t presume to lecture me on the possibilities of a worthwhile association against the Communists with the ANC – which was trained in Angola and Zambia. In order to stop the spread of pan-African Communism, an alliance with the devil was ultimately necessary.

I'm a fan of human rights. Not to mention the fact that the drugs run out of Colombia aren't controlled by FARC, rather, they are controlled by the millitary. In fact, the president of Colombia was considered a leading Colombian drug trafficker during the Clinton administration. FARC does deal in drugs, but they are being targeted because they are leftists, and the Colombian government has been responsible for the deaths of 20000 people for "political reasons.

Oh, poor kidnapping FARC with their endless fields of drugs.

Not necessarily, but if Bush is going to run around accusing people of being responsible for the actions of those they support (if they're called "terrorists"), then it would be hypocritical of the US not to take responsibility for the actions of the people it supports and has supported. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In other words, I think most people would be more inclined to accept this reasoning if Bush would shut the fuck up.

Bush should of course couch his words and intentions in a far better manner. That does not however change the fact that his actions are correct. We should be going after those who have links to the chain of terror – whether or not we “clean up” everything.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-19 12:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:My point remains the same, is America resposible for everything that these asshats do
Not necessarily, but if Bush is going to run around accusing people of being responsible for the actions of those they support (if they're called "terrorists"), then it would be hypocritical of the US not to take responsibility for the actions of the people it supports and has supported. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In other words, I think most people would be more inclined to accept this reasoning if Bush would shut the fuck up.

There is truth in that as well, but it is not the black and white/ all or nothing situation that some would want it to be for political leverage. My country has many things to fix, answer, make up for. As with most things, our failures are dangled infront of us and our successes are forgotten.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-19 04:56pm

Knife wrote:There is truth in that as well, but it is not the black and white/ all or nothing situation that some would want it to be for political leverage. My country has many things to fix, answer, make up for. As with most things, our failures are dangled infront of us and our successes are forgotten.

Indeed. And those nations who did the same when they could. Not to mention in many cases they were apart of the Cold War ruthlessness. All the nations need to stop the hypocrisy. There isn't a nation out there that can honestly claim it's shit doesn't stink. We need to, as nations, fess up to our misdeeds and mistakes and work to fix them.

As to the War on Terror. Yes, a lot of the nations had US involvement and interference. But there are few nations that weren't caught up in the Cold War some how.