|
| |
precedents_to_the_war
|
|
|
stork daddy
|
remember when we liberated the phillipines from the evil rulers of spain who were violating the autonomy of the people? of course we followed up the liberation with an occupation and a complete snubbing of our "allies" in the filipino freedom fighter aguinaldo (although aguinaldo himself seemed often very self serving, going as far as to include a clause allowing for an emergency declaration of a dictatorship. He was also not as popular with the people as the previous leader of the rebel forces, andres bonifacio, which may be why the US decided to back him . Clearly our interests went beyond liberation in that case as we did not abandon the occupation untill the late 1940s (although on the US's behalf General MacArthur did plead with Roosevelt that we not skip over the Phillipines in our naval planning as it would confirm the suspicions of the people that the US had abandoned them). Either way, our continued presence in the region may not have had positive affects, and the fact that we were there too long, watching the mobilization of political forces that seemed desireable come and go caused us to leave when there was a power vacuum, allowing a dictator who did much harm to the country to take power. In Iraq, we must of course create stability, but we musn't let the people grow to depend on us or force us out hastily as such a sudden disengagment will likely lead to more bids at power by dictators or governments equal to the one we sought to dispose. Our occupation must be limited to the amount of time it takes to set up a workeable government and election system. It remains to be seen whether we will find the various excuses for continued presence in iraq in attempts to distract attention from rationalize away from what i feel are our true interests in iraq.
|
030512
|
| |
... |
|
|
minnesota_chris
|
stomp on a country, ignore them, repeat
|
030512
|
| |
... |
|
|
birdmad
|
we have a weird way of "liberating" countries, don't we?
We liberated the Chilean people in 1973 (September 11, coincidentally) right into the hands of Gen. Pinochet where he reigned for 17 years, all because their democraticaly elected president (whom Pino-shit had either assassinated or executed) wanted to kick out a bunch of US business interests (Coincidentally again, Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowitz was his right-hand man back then too.)
The same bunch of guys who helped "Liberate" the people of Cambodia right into the hands of Pol Pot, who, in turn liberated 6 million of his own citizens from the burden of their lives during his regime.
Or that nicely liberted power-vacuum that is Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai must be shitting in his pants on a daily basis realizing that the Pentagon Power Trip has pretty much left his ass swinging in the wind. Anarchy, warlords, all that fun stuff like that, just like the situation that led to the Taliban taking control of the country.
(and of course, who can forget that back when the Taliban were calling themselves Mujahideen, we were funding and training them too ...including some guy named Osama)
|
030512
|
| |
... |
|
|
FYI
|
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran.
U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
On June 1st, 1953, the CIA and the British SIS submitted their initial plans for the overthrow of Mossadeq, and the installation of the Shah as dictator and General Zahedi as Prime Minister. Both the CIA and the SIS pledged military and logistical aid, and worked through the British ambassador in Tehran to convince the Shah to assume the dictatorship. In presenting this plan to the Shah, the US and the Brits wanted to stress that the primary objective of the coup was "to maintain independence Iran [sic] and keep from Soviet orbit. To do this Mossadeq must be removed." The secondary objective (which they list first) 'as pitched to the Shah" was oil.
On August 19th, 1953, democratically elected Mossadeq was overthrown, and the Shah took control. Read this Memorandum for the President from August 1953, classified as Top Secret. In particular: "The Shah is a new man. For the first time he believes in himself because he feels that he is King by his people's choice. He recognizes now his debt to us and hopes, as he puts it, that we have a realistic understanding of the importance of Iran to us."
The New York Times has an excellent collection of original documents (you need Adobe Acrobat), historic photographs, and an archive of original Times' coverage of the coup. There‚s also a timeline of US-Iran relations, as well as a timeline of the coup itself. More declassified documents on Iran can be found here from the National Security Archive. Many of the original documents, however, were destroyed.
What if the US and the UK had stayed out of Iran?
In 1954, Iran happily announced an oil deal with British, French and American oil companies.
|
030512
|
| |
... |
|
|
birdmad
|
the sound of a little bit of history repeating
|
030513
|
| |
... |
|
|
...
|
the precedents_to_the_war are a whole load of countries sticking their noses where it's not wanted because they feel threatened becuase someone else is getting a share of the power.
The world is like a little club, apply for membership by buying too many weapons, if the other members like you, you're in, otherwise, you may have to use your membership card.
|
030630
|
