Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 02:28 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The Obama administration has just announced that it and the DOJ have decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. AG Eric Holder said that the immediate affect will be that the DOJ will no longer appear in court defending DOMA in cases involving same-sex marriages/unions.


It's an attack on Mitch Daniels and his 'truce.' Cleverly done.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 04:28 pm


Americans call Obama's performance in office 'Outrageous' and 'Unacceptable'.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 04:55 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Odd that you should be so concerned, Ican. The Constitutional Republic of which you speak ranks as one of the greatest thieves of all times. Just try to imagine for a moment how much wealth the US has stolen from all the countries it has invaded, brutalized, exerted control over.

The difference between these situations and yours, is that your governments do it to you with your consent. How come you never bitch about the trillions spent on illegal invasions that engorge the tiny fraction of already bloatedly rich Americans?

Your post, JTT, is NONSENSE!

Until its recent decline, the Constitutional Republic of which I speak ranked as one of the greatest preservers of liberty of all times. Because of that liberty, Americans and the peoples they have aided have prospered instead of being starved, prospered instead of being mass murdered, prospered instead of being dictated to, prospered instead of being made beggars, and prospered instead being forced to conform to the will of totalitarians.

Only recently are Americans in the process of losing their liberty to the invidious power coveting lying scum among them who are gaining more control of their government. That scum must be stopped not only for Americans to prosper but also for the entire human race to prosper.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 05:36 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Americans call Obama's performance in office 'Outrageous' and 'Unacceptable'.


For those of us who follow and can source polls, I found this interesting...
Rasmussen had Obama at -20 in the Strongly Approve vs Strongly Disapprove poll yesterday. Approve vs Disapprove was 44-55 (= -11)
Gallup had it as 47-45 (= +2) in the Approve vs Disapprove poll today.
A month ago, Rasmussen showed it as 46-53 (-6) while Gallup said 48-52 (-4).
Scott Rasmussen acknowledges (genuinely, I think) that he doesn't know why his polling in the last few days is where it is. He seems to suggest that most of the slippage for Obama appears to be amongst those who Approved of him. Perhaps it has something to do with a perceived waffling about Libya.

It will be interesting to see how today's announcement on DOMA plays out. I suspect that Obama's Approval rating will rise. More interesting to watch will be to see what happens in the Disapprove category. Will this be a galvanizing social issue for Republicans/Conservatives?

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 05:50 pm
@realjohnboy,


It's interesting how the left is completely satisfied with 'Outrageous' and 'Unacceptable'.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 07:24 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Until its recent decline, the Constitutional Republic of which I speak ranked as one of the greatest preservers of liberty of all times.


That's an ouright lie, Ican. Certainly the US propaganda stream has told you that but the historical record tells a much different story.

I know how you like to pore over lengthy articles. Here's one that blows your silly little notions about the US being some kind of savior right out of the water.

Quote:

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

by William Blum

Z magazine , June 1999


The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:

Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:

U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:

After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:

The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:

The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:

Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:

For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:

The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.

Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:

Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:

President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.

Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:

Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.

The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:

A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:

Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.

After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.

They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:

The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.

It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.

Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."

George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:

When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:

What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.

U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.

In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:

Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:

Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"

George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq, 1990s:

Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.

Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:

Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:

El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:

The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999:

The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html


plainoldme
 
  1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 07:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I doubt that JTT is Marburg. The style is different.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 07:54 pm
@okie,
I thought we were already forced to carry auto and homeowners' insurance. Where have you been?
plainoldme
 
  1  
Wed 23 Feb, 2011 07:57 pm
If the American people are opposed to Obama, why wasn't Rahm Emmanuel trounced in Chicago?
JTT
 
  1  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:16 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Is the Marburg thing confirmed?


Why not just ask me, Cy? I'm as honest as June 21 on Daylight Savings is long.

Why on Earth would you ask Finn anything where you expected an honest reply?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 03:36 am
@plainoldme,
Because votes are selling wholesale in Chicago. The Daleys are out and the Prez' cronies are in.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:44 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
That's an ouright lie, Ican. Certainly the US propaganda stream has told you that but the historical record tells a much different story.

I know how you like to pore over lengthy articles. Here's one that blows your silly little notions about the US being some kind of savior right out of the water.

Quote:
A [distorted] Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
...

ican711nm wrote:
Until its recent decline, the Constitutional Republic of which I speak ranked as one of the greatest preservers of liberty of all times.

The Constittutional Republic of which I speak was born March 4, 1789, almost 222 years ago..

Dictatorships in Italy, Germany and Japan were ended with major help from the USA in WWI and WWII, respectively, in 1918 and in 1945. Also, the spread of murderous and dictatorial International Communism was significantly stifled with major help from the USA in the 1980s.

However, the major decline of the US Constitutional Republic began recently in the first year of Democrat Woodrow Wilson's first term in 1913, about 98 years ago, with for example the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the progressive (i.e., non-uniform and retrogressive) income tax, and wealth transfers. Republican Hoover in 1932 and Democrat Roosevelt in 1933 -1944, with high income tax rates on and large wealth transfers from our most productive citizens, accelerated our decline. But the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate with Barack Obama as Senator and subsequently President starting in 2008 have contributed the most to the now rapid decline of the USA with their extraordinary deficit spending.

okie
 
  1  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:59 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I thought we were already forced to carry auto and homeowners' insurance. Where have you been?
I am required by the State to carry liability insurance for my car, but not collision or comprehensive auto insurance. I hope you are sharp enough to know why and what the difference is.

The government does not require me to carry homeowners insurance. It would be the home loan company that would require it, to protect their loan risk. Since my home is paid off, I choose to buy homeowners insurance to insure my investment against any loss that could occur. If I was wealthy enough however, I would probably not buy insurance for it.
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:03 pm
Meanwhile, two things:
I'm rather glad Obama has toned down US involvement in the inner workings of the ME - and left them mostly to their own designs...however, I think he should at least make some noise about the violence against civilians. Where is the comment that the American people stand with all citizens of the world who fight for increased freedoms?.... Makes me wonder if maybe he can't say that because of what he and his cronies are saying behind closed doors??

And then, there's this
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
which I dearly like. Late, but finally here.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:06 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Meanwhile, two things:
I'm rather glad Obama has toned down US involvement in the inner workings of the ME - and left them mostly to their own designs...however, I think he should at least make some noise about the violence against civilians. Where is the comment that the American people stand with all citizens of the world who fight for increased freedoms?.... Makes me wonder if maybe he can't say that because of what he and his cronies are saying behind closed doors??


He did exactly that in a speech yesterday -

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/23/obama-threatens-gaddafi-with-accountability/

Quote:
Obama Threatens Gaddafi with "Accountability"
Posted by Massimo Calabresi
February 23, 2011 at 6:17 pm
16 Comments

How do you restrain a megalomaniacal despot with unlimited funds who has a history of slaughtering innocents and could disrupt energy flows from the world's 9th largest petroleum exporting country? President Obama took a stab at it this evening, using the threat of "accountability" repeatedly in brief remarks from the White House. But his sternly worded statement did more to show just how volatile and out-of-control Libya has become as power slips from the brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama had previously said little on the deteriorating situation there, issuing only a written statement last Friday. This afternoon, with Americans making their way out of the country, he said "We strongly condemn the use of violence in Libya" and "the suffering and bloodshed is outrageous, and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop."

Washington is not close to Gaddafi, and formulaic objections like those are unlikely to influence the dictator. So the president tried to get his attention with some multilateral options that seemed to target Gaddafi himself, though the president never mentioned him by name. Obama tried to sharpen yesterday's oblique UN Security Council threat of "accountability", by saying it had also been made by the EU, the Arab League, the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. "North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people," Obama said.

He then went further, saying that every option, including presumably military ones, might be on the table should Gaddafi follow through on his threats. Said Obama, "I've also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners or those that we'll carry out through multilateral institutions." Obama then laid out the justification under international law for considering humanitarian intervention. "Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities and face the cost of continued violations of human rights," Obama said.

It is unlikely that the U.S. would lead a military intervention to Libya: American interests there are limited. Obama's tough language is more an indication of how far outsiders will need to go to get Gaddafi's attention.



I think you are correct that a hands-off approach is probably best right now. Distrust of the US is still high after our wars in the area, and it would be far too easy for whatever regime is being revolted against to turn us into an enemy, if Obama seems to be meddling too much.

Cycloptichorn
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I think you are correct that a hands-off approach is probably best right now. Distrust of the US is still high after our wars in the area, and it would be far too easy for whatever regime is being revolted against to turn us into an enemy, if Obama seems to be meddling too much.

I agree with your sentiment.

I do disagree that Obama shou7ld have spoken up during the worst part of the violence and signaled solidarity with the revolutionaries.

All in all, though, can't complain much.

Yet.

Also, he seems bold to knock down Qaddafi, but a bit timid toward Egypt...
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:20 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Quote:
I think you are correct that a hands-off approach is probably best right now. Distrust of the US is still high after our wars in the area, and it would be far too easy for whatever regime is being revolted against to turn us into an enemy, if Obama seems to be meddling too much.

I agree with your sentiment.

I do disagree that Obama shou7ld have spoken up during the worst part of the violence and signaled solidarity with the revolutionaries.


Why? It wouldn't have changed anything. It would just have been posturing, and everyone would have known it. What's strong about that?

Quote:
All in all, though, can't complain much.

Yet.


Shrug. What's to complain about? Not enough faux-tough statements from the Big Daddy in charge for you?

Quote:
Also, he seems bold to knock down Qaddafi, but a bit timid toward Egypt...


Yeah. That's probably because Egypt has been our close ally for a long, long time, especially on a military level (we train all their officers here in the US). The political situation is 100% different. But don't let little things like facts get in the way of complaining.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 01:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Dictatorships in Italy, Germany and Japan were ended with major help from the USA in WWI and WWII,


Such specious arguments, Ican. They do you justice. Immediately try to bring up some positive note so your mind doesn't have to face the reality of the evil.

That's the equivalent of a Hitler defence team focusing on how much he gives to his church or the gifts he bestowed on his nieces and nephews. The positives, no matter how many, never forgive the war crimes and in the case of the US they are manifold.

In this you really aren't much different than the vast majority of Americans, even those who make a pretense of being open minded thinkers, like the "discussion" that's going on between Lash and Cycloptichorn.

They are talking around the real issues, dancing merrily across the floor being oh so careful not to bump into the elephant or step in any of the myriad piles of dung that litter the floor.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 01:11 pm
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!
For example, wishing for an international communist government will prove fatal for millions of people.

Nazis murdered over ten million German civilions, 1931 - 1945.an average of over 714,285 per year.

Communists murdered over one-hundred-six million civilians 1926-1987, an average of over 1,742,081 per year.

Quote:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/com.tab1.gif
TABLE 1 {a}
COMMUNIST HOMICIDE
REGIME..................................YEARS..........DEMOCIDE.......ANNUAL RATE %
Afghanistan.............................1978-87............228,000................0.157
Albania....................................1944-87...........100,000................0.118
Angola.....................................1975-87............125,000................0.302
Bulgaria...................................1944-87...........222,000................0.062
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge).............1975-79........2,035,000................8.161
Cambodia (Samrin).....................1979-87...........230,000................0.398
China.......................................1949-87......35,236,000................0.120
Cuba........................................1959-87...............73,000..............0.028
Czechosolovakia........................1948-68...............65,000..............0.024
Ethiopia.....................................1974-87..............725,000.............0.162
Germany (East).........................1948-87...............70,000.............0.011
Grenada (Coup)........................1983-83....................106...............NA
Hungary....................................1948-87...............27,000..............0.007
Korea, North............................1948-87...........1,663,000.............0.250
Laos (PDR)...............................1975-87...............56,000..............0.124
Mongolia..................................1926-87..............100,000.............0.187
Mozambique.............................1975-87.............198,000..............0.123
Nicaragua (Sandinistas)................1979-87..............5,000..............0.020
Poland......................................1948-87...............22,000.............0.002
Rumania................................1948-87.............435,000.............0.055
USSR........................................1917-87..........61,911,000............0.422
Vietnam (Hanoi).......................1945-87...........1,670,000...........0.105
Yemen, South).........................1967-87..................1,000............0.002
Yugoslavia................................1944-87..........1,072,000............0.118
SUBTOTALS ................................1900-87.........106,267,000...........0.477 {b}
COMMUNIST GUERRILLAS..............1900-87............4,019,000...........0.477 NA
COMMUNIST TOTAL....................1900-87.........110,286,000...........0.477 {b}
WORLD TOTAL............................1900-87.........169,199,000...........0.235 {b}

{a} From R.J. Rummel, Death by Government Genocide and Mass Murder in the Twentieth Century, (Transaction Publishers, 1994)
{b} Average

JTT
 
  0  
Thu 24 Feb, 2011 01:27 pm
@ican711nm,
Again with the specious arguments, Ican. Nobody has suggested a wish for any kind of government that butchers people, except for you. By trying to divert attention away from US support for murderous right wing dictators, you essentially are saying that you support these war crimes.

Your "boogeymen, boogeyment, watch out for these boogeymen!!" argument falls completely flat.

By refusing to address the FACTS, and the facts are clear, the US has installed many a right wind butcher who has slaughtered, with US guidance and support, millions of people.

One has to wonder. What is the difference between a communist government that butchers people and a US sponsored right wing government that butchers people?
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1950
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:21:06