CIA Changes

[Crateria]

(Mods, if this topic has been done or is in the wrong category, please feel free to do what is necessary)

From what I've read over various topics about the CIA, it seems to do a bad job in both stopping espionage on America by hostile (and friendly) countries and contributing to beneficial foreign policy. The CIA has been historically humiliated by constant penetration by the KGB (and likely its Warsaw Pact counterparts, as well as other nations like China) which has resulted in numerous CIA agent deaths, loss of secrecy and difficulty with intelligence gathering.

Some of the more notable failures in American foreign policy as directed by the CIA include the propping of right wing dictators across the planet, the blind support of the more anti-American and fundamentalist members of the Mujahideen (and the subsequent lack of interest in preventing Afghanistan to fall almost completely to the Taliban) and the refusal to work with the new Cuban government under Castro, which lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis and decades of hostility and missed opportunities.

The CIA has apparently been stymied by both lack of personnel and knowledge in dealing with world issues as well as conflict with the US Government.
Were the CIA to be disbanded, I fear that nothing would change since the disbandment of the OSS caused problems for the newly created CIA.

I would like the members of SD.Net to discuss the topic on what to do about the CIA with all the knowledge they have or can discover. My main questions are these:

1. Should the CIA be given more power over things like communications or media (in order to supposedly not endanger CIA operations by a scandal-seeking media)?
2. Should the CIA be blamed for various fuckups in American history, or are various parts of the US Government more responsible? How did these fuckups occur? Was there a pattern to them?
3. What should the CIA do to prevent further disasters in both foreign policy and counter-intelligence?
4. Is the CIA a rogue organization that needs to be reformed?
5. What is its ideology, and does it bind its operatives' world view?
6. Although I personally do not advocate this, would suspension of democracy (temporary or permanant) in the USA and modelling the CIA after its totalitarian twin the KGB (or alternatively the MSS) make it a better, more effective organization? What would the likely price for this be? Would the CIA turn into a secret police?
7. Which states are worth being friends with?

[Samuel]

Some of the more notable failures in American foreign policy as directed by the CIA include the propping of right wing dictators across the planet,

That isn't a failure, but a feature of the US anti-communist policy.

the blind support of the more anti-American and fundamentalist members of the Mujahideen (and the subsequent lack of interest in preventing Afghanistan to fall almost completely to the Taliban)

That was only a problem because Al-Queda decided to base there. If they hadn't we never would have cared about what happened in Afghanistan.

1. Should the CIA be given more power over things like communications or media (in order to supposedly not endanger CIA operations by a scandal-seeking media)?

No, that would be a horrible plan. Can you imagine how much it would bloat to moniter all media?

[Crateria]

Some of the more notable failures in American foreign policy as directed by the CIA include the propping of right wing dictators across the planet,

1. That isn't a failure, but a feature of the US anti-communist policy.

the blind support of the more anti-American and fundamentalist members of the Mujahideen (and the subsequent lack of interest in preventing Afghanistan to fall almost completely to the Taliban)

2.That was only a problem because Al-Queda decided to base there. If they hadn't we never would have cared about what happen ed in Afghanistan.

1. Should the CIA be given more power over things like communications or media (in order to supposedly not endanger CIA operations by a scandal-seeking media)?

3. No, that would be a horrible plan. Can you imagine how much it would bloat to moniter all media?

1.It's not a bug, it's a feature
I meant a failure as in a long term failure. Colombia is apparently a democracy, but its government seems to bend over to US corporations when it comes to workers rights, as well as being backed by violent rightist cartels who are the major distributers of cocaine to the US. Or Iran, whose government is both antiwestern as well as fundamentalist due to the mullahs seizing control from the revolution that toppled the shah.
2. So you're saying that it's a problem because Al-Qaeda came there? Or because the US only saw it as a problem because of that? If the former, I think you should have worried about Afghanistan under Hekmatyar, Haqqani or Sayyaf. Like I said, Al-Qaeda lite without Al-Qaeda even being there.
3. That's what I was thinking too. Or perhaps an better thing to do would to spy on the channels in MURRICA that would do big documentaries on the CIA and slip them some anthrax to remind them who's in charge. (not seriously avocating this, I know it would be a stupid idea)

Also, could somebody tell me how to have my reply under a quote?

[PeZook]

How is propping up right-wing dictators a failure of the CIA? The CIA doesn't set American foreign policy, at worst it can recommend this course of action or another to the policymakers. As far as operational success goes, their right-wing coups were pretty succesful.

This is of course not considering the moral aspects of their work, just operational success or faiure in accomplishing their goals.

[Shroom Man 777]

The establishment of American-supporting regimes throughout the third world is in fact crucial to the geopolitical success of the USA. This, if anything, is one of the greatest accomplishments of the CIA and is one of America's greatest moral victories, and through the support and resources and whatnot gained from these countries, the American citizen has benefited greatly. If anything, the only failure is that the CIA has not made more regimes like this, to further benefit the American people.

[PeZook]

The establishment of American-supporting regimes throughout the third world is in fact crucial to the geopolitical success of the USA. This, if anything, is one of the greatest accomplishments of the CIA and is one of America's greatest moral victories, and through the support and resources and whatnot gained from these countries, the American citizen has benefited greatly. If anything, the only failure is that the CIA has not made more regimes like this, to further benefit the American people.

Arguably the US could've still achieved geopolitical success through less assholish means though, which puts the "moral" in "moral victory" into question

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, depends on whose definition of moral. Hectolinear pituitary criteria analyses and all that.

I do not think the USA would've become a hyperpower without doing what it did. If it was meek and isolationist, it would still be a great and rich country compared to all other nations, but... you could argue that geopolitical success, the perception of superpower status, and the like, is also in part defined by a nation behaving like a raving douche.

The US was already a great power, but only when it killfucked the fuck out of Spain did people start getting that it was big dog.

I might be getting out of my element, yeah. And out of topic too. But this is interesting. The criteria of judgment for geopolitical success.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, before you can name the criteria you have to have a definition of geopolitical success. What constitutes "success?" Getting what you want? Getting what you need? Having lots of people afraid of you? Having lots of people love you? Being involved in as many things as possible?

[Crateria]

How is propping up right-wing dictators a failure of the CIA? The CIA doesn't set American foreign policy, at worst it can recommend this course of action or another to the policymakers. As far as operational success goes, their right-wing coups were pretty succesful.

This is of course not considering the moral aspects of their work, just operational success or faiure in accomplishing their goals.

I consider them failures because them made communism more popular to people who might have been "meh" to them in the first place.

Consider Guatemala- despite the government there only trying to redistribute land from the United Fruit Company (which from what I recall wasn't doing anything with it anyway) to the peasants who desperately needed it, the US Government got all batshit crazy over this (probably not helped by the CIA director being a former/current leader of United Fruit) and decided to overthrow the government and institute a series of coups by right wing dictators which impoverished the nation and turned Guatemala into a bloody war-torn battlefield.

They also supported the brutal regime in El Salvador which made crimes against humanity a national policy against dissidents. And this too was a failure because not only was the regime the clear villain in the war, it also was defeated in the end. Fortunately for the USA, the new government lead by the communist rebels didn't apparently go the route of Cuba in defying its wishes.

To determine whether or not the rightist dictatorships were failures, how effective were they compared to leftist nations (dictator or otherwise)? (Of course, since the USA and its allies propped up rightist dictators across the world, I bet we don't have many to compare from, do we?)

If the CIA had advised for these dictators from the beginning and got their way, it would be in my opinion their fault. If not, then the US Government and its amoral policies are to blame.

[Kingmaker]

Well, before you can name the criteria you have to have a definition of geopolitical success. What constitutes "success?"

Well, the US maintained control of its Spheres of Influence (the Americas and NATO) and prevented the commies from getting a significant foothold. I'd call geopolitical success. Except for, you know, the massive spread of communist regimes throughout the rest of the world.

I do not think the USA would've become a hyperpower without doing what it did. If it was meek and isolationist, it would still be a great and rich country compared to all other nations, but... you could argue that geopolitical success, the perception of superpower status, and the like, is also in part defined by a nation behaving like a raving douche.

The US was already a great power, but only when it killfucked the fuck out of Spain did people start getting that it was big dog.

I would disagree, sort of (but not entirely). Being a great power is as much about international perception as raw capability. Before the Spanish-American War, the US was not perceived to be a nation with global reach and global interests, and hence not a great power. Prior to that, the US had confined itself to dicking around in North America, with the occasional excursion southward.

After World War II, the scale of game changed, giving us the rival superpowers of the USA and USSR. In the exercise of power, a superpower can't afford to not be a giant dick, because if the other guy is a dick and you aren't, you get screwed. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Except it's now about prison rape. And if you both pick rape, it's the rest of the world that gets fucked.

[Crateria]

Well, the US maintained control of its Spheres of Influence (the Americas and NATO) and prevented the commies from getting a significant foothold. I'd call geopolitical success. Except for, you know, the massive spread of communist regimes throughout the rest of the world.

I think part of the reason why NATO turned out to be a success was that the NATO regimes were both liked by their people as well as efficient in keeping the standard of living up.
Italy had a huge mafia problem as well as contributing to the Years of Lead (false-flag terrorism to make leftists look bad), Greece was run by a US-installed military junta after the US got pissy over some election in Greece and Spain and Portugal were conservative para-fascist states. And that's not covering the European colonial powers. So they weren't all sunshine and happiness.

I think that if the US had allowed democracy to take place in the areas instead of supporting corrupt rightist dictators, it might have reflected better on the US in the long run. Because of the dictators, the US's message in the rest of the world's eyes was not "Freedom and democracy for all!" it was "Fuck you if you even think about making some change in leadership that we don't like!" But of course, this was always the USA's message.

[Purple]

@Crateria

Ah, but if you give people a democracy they may vote for communism. Sort of like how it would have happened in Vietnam.
Better to install someone who will make sure they don't.

Well, before you can name the criteria you have to have a definition of geopolitical success. What constitutes "success?" Getting what you want? Getting what you need? Having lots of people afraid of you? Having lots of people love you? Being involved in as many things as possible?

Getting your own way through force if necessary enough times that people are too afraid of not obeying you. In essence, a superpower is the global version of a school yard bully. The behavior of "just give him what he wants and he will leave you alone" becomes the standard way of dealing with them.


Your problem Crateria is that you labor under the illusion that American propaganda about freedom and justice from the time was not just that, empty propaganda. Just like it is today. All that talk about justice and freedom was no more real than the soviet talk of building a classless society. And yet, you assume the opposite. And you your assumption that the CIA has failed based on this flawed starting assumption.

Fact is that America like all the great powers of the day and even today could not care less about the lives of foreign citizens. When it goes out to "help" someone what it is actually doing is going out to "freedomize" them and set up a government more suitable to exploitation. Like any normal great power through the ages back from the first tribes of humanity they want to get benefit for them self (in this case the rich corporations and their political helpers) at the expense of others. So in that respect the CIA was a resounding success in all fields.

If there is any moral failing in the matter, it lies not at the CIA but at the people who gave them orders and who make up American foreign policy.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The US was already a great power, but only when it killfucked the fuck out of Spain did people start getting that it was big dog.

I want to fund a history book written by Shroomy.

Back to the topic at hand, does anyone think the collapse of various military regimes in the mideast is a sign that the regimes we set up WEREN'T the best for them, or were they really the best solution at the time?

[Gandalf]

Back to the topic at hand, does anyone think the collapse of various military regimes in the mideast is a sign that the regimes we set up WEREN'T the best for them, or were they really the best solution at the time?

They were a solution for a short period in that they prevented countries from aligning with the USSR, but a problem in the long run because the regimes seemed to lack legitimacy in the eyes of their people they ruled.

[Crateria]

@Crateria

Ah, but if you give people a democracy they may vote for communism. Sort of like how it would have happened in Vietnam.
Better to install someone who will make sure they don't.

Getting your own way through force if necessary enough times that people are too afraid of not obeying you. In essence, a superpower is the global version of a school yard bully. The behavior of "just give him what he wants and he will leave you alone" becomes the standard way of dealing with them.

Your problem Crateria is that you labor under the illusion that American propaganda about freedom and justice from the time was not just that, empty propaganda. Just like it is today. All that talk about justice and freedom was no more real than the soviet talk of building a classless society. And yet, you assume the opposite. And you your assumption that the CIA has failed based on this flawed starting assumption.

Fact is that America like all the great powers of the day and even today could not care less about the lives of foreign citizens. When it goes out to "help" someone what it is actually doing is going out to "freedomize" them and set up a government more suitable to exploitation. Like any normal great power through the ages back from the first tribes of humanity they want to get benefit for them self (in this case the rich corporations and their political helpers) at the expense of others. So in that respect the CIA was a resounding success in all fields.

If there is any moral failing in the matter, it lies not at the CIA but at the people who gave them orders and who make up American foreign policy.

I tend to have faith in America (in the Mark Twain sense, "Faith is something you believe in that you know ain't true" ) Or perhaps the knowingly ironic sense in the Godfather and They Live, both appropriate for this discussion-" I believe in America".

I understand that you view these actions as mere moral failings considering due to America's power and military might in the world making them succeed. But I view these imperialist actions, which you view as basically the sole purpose of the CIA (or the US Foreign Policy), as terrible foreign policy mistakes even though America in itself is not really challenged. This is because they tend to create terrorists and resentments towards the USA as well as make its foreign objectives difficult.

Many of the USA's dictator buddies have been deposed despite America bringing them to power and helping them maintain their power via secret police, fraudulent election, military rule or all of the above. The very fact that so many of them have been overthrown makes the USA's policy not only amoral but somewhat stupid considering the nations where they are put into place tend to become less stable (and more likely to have some big problem that negatively affects the US) and also become a hotbed of both far-right and far-left militants, both of whom (especially the latter) tend to effectively galvanize public support against the typical pro-US puppet state. The US either tries to keep the conflict (if it is violent) as low-intensity as it can or takes more brutish methods or gets in there personally (and sometimes runs away like in Vietnam if it can't win )

The reason why I at least have not become a total cynic/realistic viewer as you is because the democracies in Europe and elsewhere have to a large degree succeeded. Though given what you're saying, I suspect this was the US playing nice guy so that the democracies, with its industrialized areas wouldn't fall to the Soviets. The rest of the world can go to hell though, I'm sure.

As for the "Don't give them democracy because they'll vote in communism", that alone makes the foreign policy even more idiotic considering China and Vietnam for example are both under the rule of communist parties yet many people in their populations make cheap products for the USA (and can't do anything about it because they're dicatorships that brutally crack down as well as have popular support).

So the implications from your post are that the CIA will forever and ever be helping to oppress the world for Murrica because that's what it was created to do? And nobody can really change that because whatever comes up will be just as bad?

And yes, CaptainChewbacca and Gandalf, they were godawful ideas because they had very little legitimacy in many cases. Like I said, it's not only the Mideastern regimes, every dictorial government brought to power by the US government is a tremendous long-term failure due to lack of popular support, corruption and not a whole lot of working internal mechanisms. They're like tumbling dolls- one push and they easily fall over. (Though I think it's also interesting that right-wing dictators or movements aren't apparently the only ones supported, as (YMMV on this though) leftist guys like Pol Pot (ok maybe this isn't the best example) that one general guy in Panama (not Noriega) and I guess you could say Ceausescu were buddies)

[PeZook]

God, what part of "The CIA doesn't set foreign policy" can't you understand?

You can go and "fix" the CIA all you want ; In the end, if they get ordered to do heinous shit by the executive out of desire for imperial America/fear of communism/want to help corporate buddies, they'll do that, even if it's stupid or short-sighted.

It's like trying to "fix" all knives so that they would stop murdering people when the actual problem is all the psychos in your society.

[Crateria]

God, what part of "The CIA doesn't set foreign policy" can't you understand?

You can go and "fix" the CIA all you want ; In the end, if they get ordered to do heinous shit by the executive out of desire for imperial America/fear of communism/want to help corporate buddies, they'll do that, even if it's stupid or short-sighted.

It's like trying to "fix" all knives so that they would stop murdering people when the actual problem is all the psychos in your society.

Who are you referring to? If you're talking to me, then I already know that. If I thought that earlier, then I apologize for it was my idea about wondering whether or not the CIA had inordinate influence over the government.

[Crateria]

Alright, what about improving CIA counter-intelligence? What steps are required there?

[Purple]

Alright, what about improving CIA counter-intelligence? What steps are required there?

Stop making so many enemies? That should lighten their work load significantly.
/semijoking

Will respond further tomorrow when I get the time.

[Crateria]

Alright, what about improving CIA counter-intelligence? What steps are required there?

Stop making so many enemies? That should lighten their work load significantly.
/semijoking

Will respond further tomorrow when I get the time.

No shit sherlock. But they'll still spy on us even if they aren't our enemies.

Any helpful tips for the actual preformance when you come back tomorrow?

[PeZook]

Wait, you expect a bunch of guys from the Internet to offer helpful tips on reforming operations of the CIA?

BTW, in the US, counterintelligence is normally the dominon of the NSA and FBI.

[Versac]

The overlap between persons both experienced in the covert intelligence world and persons willing to openly discuss it is very small indeed, and this is especially true in CI. Group-think can be a recurring problem under these circumstances, for obvious reasons, but there's no easy way around the closed nature of the field.

And yeah, domestic business is mostly FBI/NSA, though a couple of memoirs indicate that it's common practice for the CIA to do their own CI in the field.

[Purple]

]Any helpful tips for the actual preformance when you come back tomorrow?

Helpful no. But harsh.

I tend to have faith in America (in the Mark Twain sense, "Faith is something you believe in that you know ain't true" ) Or perhaps the knowingly ironic sense in the Godfather and They Live, both appropriate for this discussion-" I believe in America".

Yea, good luck with that. While you are at it believe in the tooth fairy. At least she gives you money.

I understand that you view these actions as mere moral failings considering due to America's power and military might in the world making them succeed.

Well actually to me they are not even a failing but a matter of fact.
Matter of fact is that America is the big bully it is. And like any big empire of the day it has a job to do in the world. And that job is to exploit what ever it can. The Romans did it, the British did it, the French did it and the Spanish did it, the Soviets did it and you are doing it too. It's just how it is. There can be no morality in politics. To demand that nations act responsible and with morality is to turn a blind eye to the whole of human history ever since one tribe first raised their stones on the other.

But I view these imperialist actions, which you view as basically the sole purpose of the CIA (or the US Foreign Policy), as terrible foreign policy mistakes even though America in itself is not really challenged. This is because they tend to create terrorists and resentments towards the USA as well as make its foreign objectives difficult.

The former yes but the later not so much. You see, the American foreign objective is to milk a territory dry and exploit it until it looses its usefulness. After that, they plunge the territory into chaos so that it can't ever grow to be a threat to the neighboring territories they plan to exploit next.

Furthermore an oppressive dictatorship with a madman on top is the ideal form of puppet government. The regime alienates its people and the nations around it leaving you, the one who set him up as his only support. What this means is that the leader and regime are forced to comply to anything you say or else you can always just get rid of them. And to make things better (or worse depending on your point of view) by alienating their people the regime creates plenty of people in the nation who will gladly jump to your call to do so. All you have to do is publicly denounce the leadership and support a rebellion and you can set up a new puppet government that will be more loyal.

That is what happened with Saddam. While he was using chemical weapons against Iran no one cared. While he was using them against his own people no one cared again. But as soon as he thought he could take control and threaten American interests you get the 1st Gulf War.

The reason why I at least have not become a total cynic/realistic viewer as you is because the democracies in Europe and elsewhere have to a large degree succeeded. Though given what you're saying, I suspect this was the US playing nice guy so that the democracies, with its industrialized areas wouldn't fall to the Soviets. The rest of the world can go to hell though, I'm sure.

Actually, its becouse the US needs these democracies to work out since they provide a large market for US products. Or at least that is how it was before you outsourced all production to china. Now, it's becouse they have grown big and strong enough and formed an union so you can't really mess with them. And there is no gain from doing so anyway. What given that they don't produce oil or anything else of interest on a massive scale.

As for the "Don't give them democracy because they'll vote in communism", that alone makes the foreign policy even more idiotic considering China and Vietnam for example are both under the rule of communist parties yet many people in their populations make cheap products for the USA (and can't do anything about it because they're dicatorships that brutally crack down as well as have popular support).

Communism in it self did not mater in the question. There is no problem with a nation being communist in it self. However during the cold war years being communist meant that they were in the other block. And that is what was unacceptable. To give you an analogy. Imagine the US and USSR as two school yard bullies. Each of them has his own selected victims that he may bully and extort for money at will. To be a "democratic" nation meant your bully was America and to be "communist" meant your bully was the USSR. And these two were constantly jostling to get as many kids as they can under their jurisdiction. A nation that supported the other guy was an enemy regardless of their ideological standpoint or system of government. That is why a maniacal capitalist dictator like Saddam or Pinochet were far preferable to a mildly socialist democratically elected leader like say Allende. The only thing that mattered was that he is now your victim and not that of the other guy. In that respect even Pol Pot was preferable to America becouse as long as he kept murdering his own people he could not support the USSR effectively.

So the implications from your post are that the CIA will forever and ever be helping to oppress the world for Murrica because that's what it was created to do? And nobody can really change that because whatever comes up will be just as bad?

Someone already gave you the knife analogy but I feel the need to repeat it. The CIA is just a tool. A tool that is in the hands of American foreign politics. To blame the CIA for what it does would be like blaming a private on the front lines for the acts of war he is ordered to commit. It's pointless becouse he is not the one who has the authority to make that decision.

[Crateria]

I tend to have faith in America (in the Mark Twain sense, "Faith is something you believe in that you know ain't true" ) Or perhaps the knowingly ironic sense in the Godfather and They Live, both appropriate for this discussion-" I believe in America".

Yea, good luck with that. While you are at it believe in the tooth fairy. At least she gives you money.

Real fucking nice of you to ignore what the hell I just said. I said wishing the USA would stop being a dick while knowing that it never will change due to the greedy assholes who control it never changing. I want my country to behave better but know it never will. If you had bothered to even think about what I was talking about as well as watch both movies (which are both quite cynical, both hating on evil capitalists, aka the Mafia and those aliens, something your little mind couldn't process apparently) you'd realize I feel the same way.

I understand that you view these actions as mere moral failings considering due to America's power and military might in the world making them succeed.

Well actually to me they are not even a failing but a matter of fact. Matter of fact is that America is the big bully it is. And like any big empire of the day it has a job to do in the world. And that job is to exploit what ever it can. The Romans did it, the British did it, the French did it and the Spanish did it, the Soviets did it and you are doing it too. It's just how it is. There can be no morality in politics. To demand that nations act responsible and with morality is to turn a blind eye to the whole of human history ever since one tribe first raised their stones on the other.

Fine, whatever I don't disagree blah blah whatever you're right.

But I view these imperialist actions, which you view as basically the sole purpose of the CIA (or the US Foreign Policy), as terrible foreign policy mistakes even though America in itself is not really challenged. This is because they tend to create terrorists and resentments towards the USA as well as make its foreign objectives difficult.

The former yes but the later not so much. You see, the American foreign objective is to milk a territory dry and exploit it until it looses its usefulness. After that, they plunge the territory into chaos so that it can't ever grow to be a threat to the neighboring territories they plan to exploit next.

Proof? I don't doubt the USA will want to take the resources of a nation and use them for its ends, but "plunge the territory into chaos so it can't threaten the next territories"? unless you provide proof I'm calling BS on this one. Which countries did they do this to? Again, I don't doubt that the US could do something like that if it wanted to. But which nations do you refer to? Iraq? Various ones in Indochina? The ones in Latin America or Africa? If there's a conflict in a former puppet of the US, provide evidence that the US is responsible for wanting to turn it into chaos. I'm not the one making the claim. I'll believe you if you provide examples of those nations. If not, maybe the US isn't trying to turn countries into wastelands, and just isn't all that good about the endgames in the post-puppet future? Perhaps it sees the short-term goals and wants theme desperately, and doesn't always give a shit about what happens after? I'm not trying to be naive or really trust the US for that matter, I just want proof. If you win then I'm more likely to join the legions of Purple.

]Furthermore an oppressive dictatorship with a madman on top is the ideal form of puppet government. The regime alienates its people and the nations around it leaving you, the one who set him up as his only support. What this means is that the leader and regime are forced to comply to anything you say or else you can always just get rid of them. And to make things better (or worse depending on your point of view) by alienating their people the regime creates plenty of people in the nation who will gladly jump to your call to do so. All you have to do is publicly denounce the leadership and support a rebellion and you can set up a new puppet government that will be more loyal.

That is what happened with Saddam. While he was using chemical weapons against Iran no one cared. While he was using them against his own people no one cared again. But as soon as he thought he could take control and threaten American interests you get the 1st Gulf War.

And then Iraq's rebellions were crushed instead of being supported by the US and becoming the new puppet state as you said they would. Saddam could have been overthrown if the US wanted, but he wasn't and he became more hostile to USA. Eventually they got rid of him, but the new government had nowhere near the control the Baathists did. So according to you, this is intent of your sayings because now Iraq is in chaos and the war was waged for oil? I take it you will say they are there to provoke chaos so that Iraq remains too weak to challenge the US as well as protect the oil?

So the implications from your post are that the CIA will forever and ever be helping to oppress the world for Murrica because that's what it was created to do? And nobody can really change that because whatever comes up will be just as bad?

Someone already gave you the knife analogy but I feel the need to repeat it. The CIA is just a tool. A tool that is in the hands of American foreign politics. To blame the CIA for what it does would be like blaming a private on the front lines for the acts of war he is ordered to commit. It's pointless becouse he is not the one who has the authority to make that decision.

I ALREADY AGREED WITH YOU. Did you even see one of the things I wrote? Here in quotes:

"Who are you referring to? If you're talking to me, then I already know that. If I thought that earlier, then I apologize for it was my idea about wondering whether or not the CIA had inordinate influence over the government." You see? I don't think of the CIA as a rogue agency or an inordinate power broker, merely a tool of the US government. So would you stop making assumptions?

[Purple]

Proof? I don't doubt the USA will want to take the resources of a nation and use them for its ends, but "plunge the territory into chaos so it can't threaten the next territories"? unless you provide proof I'm calling BS on this one. Which countries did they do this to? Again, I don't doubt that the US could do something like that if it wanted to. But which nations do you refer to? Iraq? Various ones in Indochina? The ones in Latin America or Africa? If there's a conflict in a former puppet of the US, provide evidence that the US is responsible for wanting to turn it into chaos. I'm not the one making the claim. I'll believe you if you provide examples of those nations. If not, maybe the US isn't trying to turn countries into wastelands, and just isn't all that good about the endgames in the post-puppet future? Perhaps it sees the short-term goals and wants theme desperately, and doesn't always give a shit about what happens after? I'm not trying to be naive or really trust the US for that matter, I just want proof. If you win then I'm more likely to join the legions of Purple.

Perhaps I was unclear... or overly dramatic... yes. Or maybe you are taking my words way too literally. I do tend to have that problem where people read my posts word by word instead of understanding what I am trying to say in general. It's like my posts are a painting. But people refuse to stand back and look at as a whole it instead always observing and analyzing each brush stroke one at a time. You would not believe how many arguments I have had over people who even went so far as to take phrases like: "as bad as him" and "stooping to his level" literally.

But back to the point at hand. You noticed quite well what I was aiming at. The US completely fails at caring for the puppet states and their people. As such, it has no intention to even bother with any end game as you called it. And without a proper management system the nation will end up horribly mangled as a political sovereign entity or at least neutered in the long term. Now, you may call this coincidence sparked by apathy. And it might well be just that. On the other hand, the effect of the country being neutered and submissive is quite certainly there and beneficial for the US. So are they planing and executing this purposefully or are they just riding the wave again and again until it becomes nauseating? I can't prove it either way and I don't think there are many people in the world who could. All I can do is ask the question. How many times does it take before an effect that reliably happens after a course of actions is noticed, categorized as beneficial and included as desired into future plans for similar action? Naturally I can't prove that this has happened to date. But it does provide food for thought if nothing else.

And then Iraq's rebellions were crushed instead of being supported by the US and becoming the new puppet state as you said they would. Saddam could have been overthrown if the US wanted, but he wasn't and he became more hostile to USA. Eventually they got rid of him, but the new government had nowhere near the control the Baathists did. So according to you, this is intent of your sayings because now Iraq is in chaos and the war was waged for oil? I take it you will say they are there to provoke chaos so that Iraq remains too weak to challenge the US as well as protect the oil?

Who knows why that was so. Most likely, who ever wanted to rebel either was not capable of doing so effectively or would not have been US friendly. And if I recall correctly in the last war Americans did in fact expect the people of Iraq to rebel as they moved in.

Furthermore, you are confusing "desired goal" with "achieved effect". Not everything that is planed turns out as expected. Iraq, just like Afghanistan is a really messed up fail on American part. Or at least for now it seems to be. It's too early to tell just what kind of government they plan to set up after (if) they ever get the population in line and if it does not turn into a mini Afghanistan.

"Who are you referring to? If you're talking to me, then I already know that. If I thought that earlier, then I apologize for it was my idea about wondering whether or not the CIA had inordinate influence over the government." You see? I don't think of the CIA as a rogue agency or an inordinate power broker, merely a tool of the US government. So would you stop making assumptions?

Actually, I was just making a finishing point to end my argument. You need to cool down, take a drink and lose the attitude.
As for my self. I need to stop making this discussion my personal rant about many things like the people here not reading my posts right and stuff. So sorry if that part is a bit derailing. Feel free to ignore any ranting.