Wor on Terror = Cleaning up your shit?

[Keevan_Colton]

I've just been pondering various things of late...concerning the War on Terror and an episode of Bremner, Bird and Fortune prompted me to post it here.
Does anyone see the irony in the fact the War on Terror is concentrating n countires that were already majorly fucked due to american intervention in the past, usually through the wonderful escapades of the CIA....

The Taliban for one ended up in power largely thanks to the efforts of the CIA....what's first on the War of Terror hit list? Ah yes...Afghanistan....
Next, lets look at the main bad guy, Osama bin Laden, who did he have ties with? Oh yes...the CIA, who offered to try and take down Saddam way back over a decade ago...yup....Osama....
Lets see...who helped Saddam get into power in the first place....lets see, originally the CIA was big on it....who provided him with support up until the first Gulf War....yup...the USA....

And while were on the topic of america and despotic assholes....a certain general that sounds a lot like Pinocchio is another of thier wonderful screw ups.....

Thoughts on this ladies and gents?

America, great bastion of democracy, because they dont let others have it.

[Keevan_Colton]

Could a mod fix the typo in the title please?
3am, a bug and lots of medicinal brandy dont mix well with typing....

[Joe]

The Taliban for one ended up in power largely thanks to the efforts of the CIA....what's first on the War of Terror hit list? Ah yes...Afghanistan...

Sounds like an unnecessary theory. Afghanistan was the first to go because it was giving refuge to the leader of the organization that coordinated the 9/11 attacks.

Next, lets look at the main bad guy, Osama bin Laden, who did he have ties with? Oh yes...the CIA, who offered to try and take down Saddam way back over a decade ago...yup....Osama....

There are no direct ties between the big bad CIA and bin Laden. Perhaps some money was funneled to him indirectly (and this is not likely).

Lets see...who helped Saddam get into power in the first place....lets see, originally the CIA was big on it....who provided him with support up until the first Gulf War....yup...the USA....

Fair enough. I do agree that cleanup may have been one of the motivations of the Iraq war, but not the War on Terror as a whole.

And while were on the topic of america and despotic assholes....a certain general that sounds a lot like Pinocchio is another of thier wonderful screw ups.....

Perhaps, but I have little doubt that the the Chilean people were better off in the long run on account of that intervention (I don't see how letting that Marxist nutcase drive the Chilean economy beyond oblivion would have done much good). But there's no need for another Chile thread, it's been done many, many times.

America, great bastion of democracy, because they dont let others have it.

Now that's just unfair. I'm no America apologist but if you can name one country that has done as much as we have to spread democracy abroad, be my guest.

[Keevan_Colton]

My last point was related to the fact that the US in years gone by has set up a lot of despotic traitors....

As for Chille....I'm sure the people that dissapeared are very happy about it....

There's always Fidel....


I wasnt saying there was a direct link of cause and effect between the war on terror and the shitty mess left in various countires....just that there seems to be an odd symetry that's worth noting.

[Joe]

As for Chille....I'm sure the people that dissapeared are very happy about it....

Compared to the people that would have been crushed by the Marxist Boot (maybe not directly, but the slaughter of the economy would have resulted in much death and suffering), perhaps the number isn't so high.

I suppose I agree with much of what you're saying, although I don't think that cleanup is a motivator for the war on terror as a whole.

[HemlockGrey]

The Taliban for one ended up in power largely thanks to the efforts of the CIA

Say it with me: Mujahadeen. Rolls right off the tongue, don't it? Mujahadeen.

who helped Saddam get into power in the first place....lets see, originally the CIA was big on it

Saddam was at that point the lesser of two evils.

There's always Fidel....

...?

[The Albino Raven]

The Taliban for one ended up in power largely thanks to the efforts of the CIA

Say it with me: Mujahadeen. Rolls right off the tongue, don't it? Mujahadeen.

Funny you should mention the Moujahedeen. Those fun loving Islamic fundementalists that the U.S. admittedly supported have been responsible not only for the first world trade center bombing in 1993, but also the attempted bombing of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels of the NewYork subway. Also, the attempted bombing of 12 jumbo jets flying over the Pacific Ocean, the 1995 attack on a US Army barracks in Riyadh, the bomb attacks in a French train station in 1995, killing 160, and the establishment of a trained fighting force in Chechnya. Now, what were you saying about this CIA supported group?

[MKSheppard]

Funny you should mention the Moujahedeen. Those fun loving Islamic fundementalists that the U.S. admittedly supported have been responsible not only for the first world trade center bombing in 1993, but also the attempted bombing of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels of the NewYork subway. Also, the attempted bombing of 12 jumbo jets flying over the Pacific Ocean, the 1995 attack on a US Army barracks in Riyadh, the bomb attacks in a French train station in 1995, killing 160, and the establishment of a trained fighting force in Chechnya. Now, what were you saying about this CIA supported group?

That was the Taliban, you dick. The Mujaheed became the Northern Alliance

[NapoleonGH]

And now of course you forgot the new next american target of aggression. The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Lets review the History

Early 50s, the despotic king (title: Shah derived from Caesar) of Iran was kicked out, forced into exile, and replaced with a left leaning democratic government. US answer? Remove the democratic government which, terror of terrors wanted to trade with BOTH the US and USSR, ohh the humanity, and bring the despotic tyrannical shah palavi back (believe you me he was both despotic and tyrannical, my family lived in the country under him, he really was a smuck). Now we get all pissy when this smuck gets kicked out and replaced with an islmanic government, turning a country which would have been a fine trading partner and neutral nation/potential ally, into one that hates the US and what we stand for having supported tyranny in their nation, while getting rid of democracy.

Durran Korr: your complete blind hatred of marxist and semimarxist systems is very telling of your bais, what do you have to say for Nicaragua, where a modified marxist system was working rather well for the vast majority. And you still maintain that a man who maintained a massive CONCENTRATION CAMP and made thousands dissappear was better than a government which got rid of private property. Seriously I most certainly doubt the long term effectiveness of extremeist leftist economic policies, but not all of them are stalinist or maoist, and i would have taken Krushchev and Lennin and Breznev over Hitler anyday.

[Joe]

And now of course you forgot the new next american target of aggression. The Islamic Republic of Iran.

We all know the history of U.S. intervention in Iran. Don't lecture us like we're a bunch morons.

Furthermore, produce proof that Iran is in fact the next target of U.S. invasion.

Durran Korr: your complete blind hatred of marxist and semimarxist systems is very telling of your bais,

Something I will make no attempt to hide. I also have a very clear hatred of all fascist and semifascist systems, for what it's worth. Blind hatred, by the way? My hatred of Marxism is motivated by the fact that in the 20th century alone it may have killed more people than organized religion killed throughout the whole previous millenium. This is not blind.

what do you have to say for Nicaragua, where a modified marxist system was working rather well for the vast majority.

Is Nicaragua's situation merely socialist, or is it generally Marxist? Socialism is not necessarily Marxism.

Furthermore, even if what you say about Nicaragua is true, then it is merely the exception to the rule. You still have to account for every run-of-the-mill Marxist butcherhouse of the 20th century; the USSR, the various Eastern European countries, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, and Cuba, to get started.

And you still maintain that a man who maintained a massive CONCENTRATION CAMP and made thousands dissappear was better than a government which got rid of private property.

In the long run, yes. The ruination that would have been wrought on the already weak Chilean economy by Allende would have been disastrous for the Chilean people. Call it embracing the lesser evil.

Seriously I most certainly doubt the long term effectiveness of extremeist leftist economic policies, but not all of them are stalinist or maoist, and i would have taken Krushchev and Lennin and Breznev over Hitler anyday.

First of all, you seem to be implying that Hitler's economic policy was not leftist. The Hitlerian economic policy had much more in common with the Soviet one than it did with a genuinely non-Leftist economic policy. Second, I would probably take Breznev or Khrushchev over Hitler, since their economics were equally bad, and they weren't mass killers, but I don't know who I'd choose between Lenin and Hitler, because Lenin was quite the murderer (he didn't live long enough to kill on a Hitlerian scale), and his economics were horrible.

[NapoleonGH]

what do you have to say for Nicaragua, where a modified marxist system was working rather well for the vast majority.

Is Nicaragua's situation merely socialist, or is it generally Marxist? Socialism is not necessarily Marxism.

find this hillarious considering the lack of any marxist government ever, but the existance of SOCIALIST governments in all those countries

[Knife]

I also find in hummorless that the smoking ruins of the battlefields of the cold war are only the fault of the USA. Yes we bear responsibility for alot of mischief in the world, and I am an advocate of cleaning up our messes. But lets NOT forget the reason the America meddled in these places.

In the early 1980's communism was winning. South America was awash in socialist and facist countries, the very oil rich and important Middle East was leaning that way and was influenced heavily by the USSR. Eastern Europe, China, South East Asia, Central America, all awash in USSR style communism that was against the USA and her allies. Nobody bitched back then at the sometimes underhanded tactics used to keep the wolf at bay. Europe was quite happy with our meddleing back then (go figure).

Do we (America) have responsiblity to clean up our messes? YES. But lets stop the blame game, western Europe was more than happy to let us wage our little cold was against the USSR and to help them keep free. Its hypocritical now to go back and wash your hands of any guilt and say it was all American's fault.

[Joe]

find this hillarious considering the lack of any marxist government ever, but the existance of SOCIALIST governments in all those countries

Ah, that argument again. Fact is, the governments in question are defined as Marxist because they carried out much of what Marx required in his manifesto. A government is defined by the procedure that it takes, and the procedures taken by these governments (maybe not at the moment, but at some point) are undeniably Marxist. The fact that they did not achieve the 100% communist perfection that you apparently require in order to label a government as Marxist does not change this fact.

Christians apologists use a similar argument when shrugging off the Crusades; the Crusaders weren't true Christians, after all.

[NapoleonGH]

no totally differennt.

If you look at what is required for Marxist communism, the countries didnt add up. they didnt even CLAIM to be marxist communistic states, but to be the Socialistic precursers to communistic states. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. If they were communistic there would be no government.

The USSR always stated that it had not accomplished true marxist communism, but was working for it. (Well breznev declared that they had achieved true communism in his declining years, but no one took him seriously and gorbechev, did not subscribe to this pov)

[Joe]

If you look at what is required for Marxist communism, the countries didnt add up. they didnt even CLAIM to be marxist communistic states, but to be the Socialistic precursers to communistic states. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. If they were communistic there would be no government.

They were using MARXIST methods, i.e. what Marx called for in the Communist Manifesto, to reach this final stage. How does that not make them Marxist? And Marxism is a form of socialism, so why shouldn't they have used the word "socialism" to describe their government?

The fact that they did not achieve the final stage of communism achieved by Marx does not change the fact that they were shooting for this by using Marxist means. Marx did not call for immediate anarchic communist utopia; he called for the STATE to do a series of things to start the process - seizing control of transportation, nationalizing all industry, and confiscating all private property, to name a few. The Soviets, as well as many other Marxist states, built their regimes by doing exactly what Marx called for precursor states to do.

They were Marxists. Deal with it.

[NapoleonGH]

Perhaps duran, you should look a little more INDEPTH into what constitutes marxism. The actions that you seem to primarily object to, are not things that marx stricktly suggested as a good idea. For instance the system of government itself.

Marx talked of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but he did not mean a dictatorship, he was talking about the class of the proletariat ruling and dictating, he was not fundamentally opposed to democracy by any means, but instead of having democracy and republicanism controlled by the bourgeois, as it was and still is for the most part, he wanted it to be under the control of the proletariat.


Also look at the brutal repressions presented by these groups, pruges and the like. To say those are indicative of what marxism is, is equivalent to looking at the US's attrocities against the population of the world and saying that they are indicative of what a federal republic is.

[Joe]

Perhaps duran, you should look a little more INDEPTH into what constitutes marxism. The actions that you seem to primarily object to, are not things that marx stricktly suggested as a good idea. For instance the system of government itself.

Yes, they are. Read the Communist Manifesto. Marx was quite specific with the measures he advised governments striving for communism to take.

Marx talked of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but he did not mean a dictatorship, he was talking about the class of the proletariat ruling and dictating, he was not fundamentally opposed to democracy by any means, but instead of having democracy and republicanism controlled by the bourgeois, as it was and still is for the most part, he wanted it to be under the control of the proletariat.

No, Marx wanted the STATE to control everything as a means to the final end of communism. The measures called for by Karl Marx are quite dictatorial. Would a proletarian democratic government institute a policy that would separate children from their parents? Because this is one of the many lovely things that Marx called for.

Also look at the brutal repressions presented by these groups, pruges and the like. To say those are indicative of what marxism is, is equivalent to looking at the US's attrocities against the population of the world and saying that they are indicative of what a federal republic is

Not quite. The atrocities committed by the United States government, with the possibility of the Indian Removal, do not even begin to compare with the absolute horrors carried out by the various Marxist governments of the 20th century neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. Furthermore, the correlation between atrocities and federal republics is infinitely lower than the correlation between atrocities and Marxist governments. Federal republics, generally speaking, do not engage in anything approaching the scale of Marxist mass-murder and oppression. It is true that federal republics, the U.S. in particular have committed their share of atrocities, but this is not the norm. It most certainly is for Marxist governments.

[Axis Kast]

I fail to see why the United States should be castigated in retrospect for what were at the time matters of national – no, global – security.

Certainly some of our actions have had negative consequences. That does not mean however that the situation would have been any better had the Soviet system prevailed. Afghanistan’s situation would have been only further exacerbated if Socialism were thrown into the mix past 1990. Iran’s permanent dominion of strategic waterways in the Near East would have been a fiscal disaster. Keep in mind that even the Kuwaitis loaned billions to Hussein during the ‘80s.

[The Albino Raven]

I fail to see why the United States should be castigated in retrospect for what were at the time matters of national – no, global – security.

Certainly some of our actions have had negative consequences. That does not mean however that the situation would have been any better had the Soviet system prevailed. Afghanistan’s situation would have been only further exacerbated if Socialism were thrown into the mix past 1990.

You're kidding right? Have you seen what prompted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Here is the order of the events up to and including the Soviet Invasion.

1. 6 months before the beginning of the Afghan War, the American government begins aiding the Moujhadeen fundementalists attempting to topple the weakening Socialist government of Afghanistan.

2.The government of Afghanistan begins to topple.

3. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, in an attempt to preserve the government.

Note, the Americans began supporting the Moujhadeen 6 months before the USSR invaded. This was done with the express purpose of drawing the Soviet Union into "Their Vietnam War".

All of the above was addmitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor under Carter) in a 1998 interview. Now, what were you saying about Afghanistan. Any of the events that transpired there were of America's own doing.

[Darth Yoshi]

I fail to see why the United States should be castigated in retrospect for what were at the time matters of national – no, global – security.

Certainly some of our actions have had negative consequences. That does not mean however that the situation would have been any better had the Soviet system prevailed. Afghanistan’s situation would have been only further exacerbated if Socialism were thrown into the mix past 1990. Iran’s permanent dominion of strategic waterways in the Near East would have been a fiscal disaster. Keep in mind that even the Kuwaitis loaned billions to Hussein during the ‘80s.

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.

[Axis Kast]

Now, what were you saying about Afghanistan. Any of the events that transpired there were of America's own doing.

To whom were you making that showboat of an argument? Me? My point was that we had no choice but to oppose Socialism in Afghanistan. We could not have the USSR gaining any stronger a foothold in Central Asia than it already had. And who’s to say that drawing Moscow into “their Vietnam” was a poor decision from the point of view of those concerned with the national security of the United States of America? It wasn’t as if any government in Kabul before we began supporting the Mudjaheen wasn’t under the Soviet thumb anyway.

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.

Just because the United States could defend its national security interests in the Persian Gulf doesn’t mean that it wasn’t wary of having to do so. Keep in mind that one of the key reasons Iran failed was because American officials eventually authorized a quasi-war on their maritime assets which bled resources from the Fao Peninsular and enabled Saddam to turn the tide. It was certainly problematic enough that elements of the United States Naval Reserve Fleet were deployed and the Soviet Union became itself involved. This of course was tied in with the notion of theocratic government and America’s opposition to it. That does no mean however that control of the shared waterways by friendly parties wasn’t a huge concern to Washington.

[The Albino Raven]

To whom were you making that showboat of an argument? Me? My point was that we had no choice but to oppose Socialism in Afghanistan. We could not have the USSR gaining any stronger a foothold in Central Asia than it already had. And who’s to say that drawing Moscow into “their Vietnam” was a poor decision from the point of view of those concerned with the national security of the United States of America? It wasn’t as if any government in Kabul before we began supporting the Mudjaheen wasn’t under the Soviet thumb anyway.

It can't have been that good of a decision, judging from the list of terror attacks they were responsible for, as can be seen in my earlier post. What I'm saying is that before making a decision of foreign policy, it would be useful to take a look at possible consequences of our actions. If we had, maybe we wouldn't have had all of the problems we've had in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Chile, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, if you are going to correct my spelling, at least spell the word right yourself. Moujahedeen

[Vympel]

All of the above was addmitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor under Carter) in a 1998 interview. Now, what were you saying about Afghanistan. Any of the events that transpired there were of America's own doing.

Is this the same guy who claimed that Afghanistan was a "bear trap" engineered by the USA?

I've heard some commentators calling this claim of credit for what happened in Afghanistan out and out bullshit- the US didn't know what was going to happen and just went with it.

Bah what's the difference all the same- the 'Soviet Vietnam' claim has always made me laugh. The Soviets copped 14,453 casualties over 10 years (bloody insignificant- cut that up into per year and you've got about 140 dead per year, if you wanna do it like that) and left because it wasn't worth staying. I always go cock-eyed at the idiot claim that Afghanistan somehow had something to do with the fall of the USSR (not saying you said that, though).

[Vympel]

The American action in Afghanistan was based on an erroneous intelligence report by the CIA, which claimed that the USSR would not only cease to be self-sufficient in oil, but would be competing for OPEC countries oil.

(that one turned out brilliantly)

This colored American foreign policy to see the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as an attempt to get a foothold in the Persian Gulf.

There was a recent Time article about it. Read and be enlightened.

I also think that the intervention in Afghanistan was a *bad* rather than a good thing for the US, even at the time: Soviet casualties were insignificant, while giving the Red Army 10 years worth of war experience they used to improve their weapons etc, e.g. upgrading the Mi-24 gunships, the Su-25 close air support aircraft, improving their tactics, testing out the VDV etc etc ...

[Axis Kast]

It can't have been that good of a decision, judging from the list of terror attacks they were responsible for, as can be seen in my earlier post. What I'm saying is that before making a decision of foreign policy, it would be useful to take a look at possible consequences of our actions. If we had, maybe we wouldn't have had all of the problems we've had in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Chile, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, if you are going to correct my spelling, at least spell the word right yourself. Moujahedeen.

It was a fine decision considering the time and circumstance. The Domino Theory had played out across Indochina and seemed to be gaining momentum in Africa. As Vympel suggested, we acted on fears of Moscow’s attempting to achieve the ever-elusive warm-water Persian Gulf foothold.

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.