The REAL Truth in Iraq

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

""The US doesn't "Dictate" to other countries how to run their economies."

You're right, they just overthrow them as in the numerous coups in Latin America. "

Most coups can easily be seen in light of the cold war. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

""If a State nationalizes private property, they are essentially stealing it."

Stealing it from whom? The natural resources of a country belong to the inhabitants of its citizens to do with as they please. "

I didn't say natural resources, I said private property. There's a difference. Let's say that I am oil company "X". And I sign a 20 year contract with country "Y". Now I invest BIG BUCKS to drill for oil in country Y. But five years latter, a new government comes along and says "We are going to nationalize this resource, and you are out." Well, if I was the company that invested all the overhead for gaining access to the oil, I MIGHT be a little pissed that the country in question reneged on its contract. What do you think?

"First and foremost nationalisation doesn't equate with withholding resources, and in none of the cases where the US intervened in Latin America from Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela did they cut off resources from the United States, their crime was to nationalise energy resorces to be used for the benefit of the impoverished populace. "

Nor did we overthrow the Venezualen government. As for Guatemala and Nicaragua, that mostly has to be seen in light of the cold war. Not solely, but mostly.

"I concur, and as such the obligation of Latin America is to its own people, to ensure they reap the benefits of their own resources, and not to be exploited. America's interventions in Latin America are simply and unequivocally illegitimate not to mention an affront to democracy and the will of the people to take charge of their economy. "

This is not a problem unless they are reneging on contracts to do it. Keeping south America poor does not help the US. A Rich south America is another market for US goods. We haven't toppled a south American government since we dropped Allende in 73, and that as fully justified. We most certainly would have taken down the Sandinistas if we could have at reasonable cost, but at the end of the day we reached accomodation.

But again, South Americas economic problems have A LOT more to do with South Americas people and leaders than it does with the US. The US is not responsible for everyone elses failures. It's a cop out. Every country with bad governance wants to blame us or Europe, as if they are not responsible for themselves at all.

[Gedo_Boy]

That's why I feel all these statements like secular democracy, capitalism, etc. are really meaningless.

You are either upright in your principles or you are not. You either stick with them come hell or highwater, or you don't.

Tony Montana understood this : "I only have my word & my balls, and I don't break them for nobody!!!"

These words like "strategic interests" don't mean a thing. What it means is you can lie when you want, cheat when you want, tell the truth if it suits you, all the while asking everyone else to not behave as hypocritical as you.

What is needed are principles that will not waiver, even if it as against "your interests". Here's what the Quran says:

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allâh is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allâh is Ever Well­Acquainted with what you do."

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"These words like "strategic interests" don't mean a thing. What it means is you can lie when you want, cheat when you want, tell the truth if it suits you, all the while asking everyone else to not behave as hypocritical as you. "

Alas Gedo, this is the way states operate. All states, everywhere.

[Gedo_Boy]

This is why mankind needs a moral leash.

[Gedo_Boy]

MAD MAC,

Would you rather have a friend that would tell you the truth, regardless.......or somebody who you couldn't count on if it was an inconvenience?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I don't need people to explain the truth to me, as I am pretty cognizant of how the world works.

And whether or not man "Needs" a moral leash doesn't mean a thing. Again, there is utopia, and there is reality. The reality is that states act in self interest, always, everywhere. That's reality, and it ain't going to change.

[Gedo_Boy]

I'm not talking about someone who would explain things to you, I'm saying if you trust a friend with something be it material or some other information........what you need is upright people.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Very few upright people become successful politicians. It happens, but its rare. Most politicians are in the buisiness of telling people what they want to hear. The number of guys out there like John McCaine are pretty slim.

Again, that's the world we live in. Nothing's going to change it

[Gedo_Boy]

Pretty sad world. We need a world that operates on a new paradigm.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

The Paradigm has been the same for thousands of years. Don't hold your breath on it changing.

[avowedly-agnostic]

"Most coups can easily be seen in light of the cold war. There are a few exceptions, but not many. "

That a people have democratically elected a government that may nationalise energey resources for their benefit doesn't matter to you? That countries turned to the soviets for trade is the fault of the US. Countries are forced to seek other trading avenues because the US won't accept nationalisation as in the case of Cuba.

Further the failed coup against Chavez was in 2000, long after the cold war.

"if I was the company that invested all the overhead for gaining access to the oil, I MIGHT be a little pissed that the country in question reneged on its contract. What do you think? "

I agree. In such a case compensation must be paid, but make no mistake, the agreements made by US backed dictators to favour US companies are no longer binding when a democratically elected government expressive of the people's wishes takes office. In such a senario, the people have a right to withdraw from agreements that they were never consulted on.

"Nor did we overthrow the Venezualen government."

The CIA certainly financed it, and when the new leader was usherd in by the coup, the State department moved to embrace him. It was only after hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets in protest demanding that Chavez be returned, that he was released.

"Keeping south America poor does not help the US. A Rich south America is another market for US goods."

Is that why the US imposes economic treaties like NAFTA, and the Wasington Consensus that disadvantage Latin America and make them havens for multinationals ? And is that why they're strangling Cuba because they care for the well being of Cubans?

"We haven't toppled a south American government since we dropped Allende in 73, and that as fully justified."

Firstly there was nothing justified in the removal of Allende, he was once again DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people. The US supported in his place the dictator Pinochet whose leadership lead to the mass murder, and imprisonment of political opponents.

Another thing, the US supported military dictatorships in Uraguay and El Salvador as well as the attempted Chavez coup. These were all after 1972. And there are many other instances before 1972 where the US has consistently undermined the rule of the people to secure its own economic, geopolitical interests.

"But again, South Americas economic problems have A LOT more to do with South Americas people and leaders than it does with the US."

When the US constantly overthrows democratically elected governments in favour of military dictatorships beacuse Latin America opts for a different economic policy to what the US wants, and then turns around to say, "we had nothing to do with it" is pretty scandalous.

"The US is not responsible for everyone elses failures. It's a cop out. Every country with bad governance wants to blame us or Europe, as if they are not responsible for themselves at all."

Not once did I blame the US for everything that's gone wrong in the world, and never have I assigned blame to Europe. With specific regards to Latin America, the US is the cheif obstacle to economic progress. Their plans to once again intervene in Cuba and privatise its currently nationalised economy is ample proof of its inability to keep its nose out of Latin American affairs.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"That a people have democratically elected a government that may nationalise energey resources for their benefit doesn't matter to you? "

Nope.

"That countries turned to the soviets for trade is the fault of the US. Countries are forced to seek other trading avenues because the US won't accept nationalisation as in the case of Cuba."

It wasn't the fault of the US. The US was in a fight to the death with the Soviets. This was our hemisphere, our area of hegmony. Period. You played in our camp, or you were gone. Those were the rules. It was our survival against theirs. Pretty simple really.

"Further the failed coup against Chavez was in 2000, long after the cold war."

The US government had nothing to do with that coup, and there was NEVER any evidence that it did. What I find ironic, however, is that Chavez claims foul play when he himself orchestrated a coup ten years before to put himself in power.

""if I was the company that invested all the overhead for gaining access to the oil, I MIGHT be a little pissed that the country in question reneged on its contract. What do you think? "

I agree. In such a case compensation must be paid, but make no mistake, the agreements made by US backed dictators to favour US companies are no longer binding when a democratically elected governmentb expressive of the people's wishes takes office. In such a senario, the people have a right to withdraw from agreements that they were never consulted on. "

THE PEOPLE? Well there's a nice, amorphic phrase. And when a nation nationlized an industry, on the rare occassion compensation is paid, it's pennies to the dollar.

"The CIA certainly financed it, and when the new leader was usherd in by the coup, the State department moved to embrace him. It was only after hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets in protest demanding that Chavez be returned, that he was released. "

The CIA certainly DID NOT finance it. Crap. Show me a SCRAP of real evidence. A SCRAP.

"Is that why the US imposes economic treaties like NAFTA, and the Wasington Consensus that disadvantage Latin America and make them havens for multinationals ? And is that why they're strangling Cuba because they care for the well being of Cubans? "

The US did not impose NAFTA, and NAFTA has benefited Mexico a great deal.

"Firstly there was nothing justified in the removal of Allende, he was once again DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people. The US supported in his place the dictator Pinochet whose leadership lead to the mass murder, and imprisonment of political opponents."

He was a democratically elected communist. You don't get it, national interest ALWAYS trumps ideology. ALWAYS. ALL STATES, ALL OF THE TIME. Wake up and look around.

"Another thing, the US supported military dictatorships in Uraguay and El Salvador as well as the attempted Chavez coup. These were all after 1972. And there are many other instances before 1972 where the US has consistently undermined the rule of the people to secure its own economic, geopolitical interests. "

We supported any non-Soviet aligned state. Those were the rules of the game at the time. We are less likely to do that now. But even in some cases, like the Meles regime, for example, there are no real alternatives.

"When the US constantly overthrows democratically elected governments in favour of military dictatorships beacuse Latin America opts for a different economic policy to what the US wants, and then turn around to say, "we had nothing to do with it" is pretty scandalous. "

Often we have nothing to do with it. We are blamed for everything. Most focked up countries just can't look at themselves in the mirror and say "The reason we live like animals is because we're a$$holes" Uncle Sam makes a convenient scape goat.

"Not once did I blame the US for everything that's gone wrong in the world, and never have I assigned blame to Europe. With specific regards to Latin America, the US is the cheif obstacle to economic progress. Their plans to once again intervene in Cuba and privatise its currently nationalised economy is ample proof of its inability to keep its nose out of Latin American affairs."

No, with regards to South America South Americans are the chief obstacle. Look, we have NOTHING to do with Cuba, and their economy is still shit. Can't blame that one on us. They trade with EVERYONE else in the world. So it ain't our fault.

[avowedly-agnostic]

I admire your candour MAD, you make no secret of your contempt for democracy and the rule of the people. You've absolutely no concern for social justice or tackling poverty. Your principal concern as a typical neo-con is US hegemony at any cost even if it means propping up brutal dictatorships.

Fortunately not all of us are so driven by greed. Those of us on the left do care about democracy. And We do care about social justice. So debating with you is pretty much a waste of time since by you're own admission, you're not concerned about those noble concepts which the rest of us compassionate people are preoccupied with.

This whole debate was centred on one issue: is US intervention in Iraq and Latin America driven by imperialism or democracy building? You frankly admitt that the US isn't the slightest bit interested in democracy. So case closed.

As regards the evidence that the US had a hand in the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002, see The Guardian article below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 02,00.html

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"I admire your candour MAD, you make no secret of your contempt for democracy and the rule of the people. You've absolutely no concern for social justice or tackling poverty. Your principal concern as a typical neo-con is US hegemony at any cost even if it means propping up brutal dictatorships. "

Actually, I think the notion of "Social Justice" is a crock. But I do think that herever possible government should try and alleviate poverty. But first things first. And protecting US interests takes precedent. Esspecially during the cold war.

"Fortunately not all of us are so driven by greed. Those of us on the left do care about democracy. And We do care about social justice. So debating with you is pretty much a waste of time since by you're own admission, you're not concerned about those noble concepts which the rest of us compassionate people are preoccupied with. "

Noble Concepts. Shit. I'm concerne with the practical. You want compassion, join the peace corps or some NGO like save the children. I'm a soldier, I kill people. Compassion takes a back seat to US national interest.

"This whole debate was centred on one issue: is US intervention in Iraq and Latin America driven by imperialism or democracy building? You frankly admitt that the US isn't the slightest bit interested in democracy. So case closed. "

It's not based on imperialism or democracy. It's based on protecting US interests and finding and killing those who want to attack US interests.

[gurey25]

[quote]It's not based on imperialism or democracy. It's based on protecting US interests and finding and killing those who want to attack US interests[/quote]

ofcourse it is, the problem is that you start believeing your own propaganda, like spreading democracy, protecting the free world.

etc etc etc.