US policy towards democracies that go against US interests(real or imagined) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15171284
@Fasces wrote:
The fundamental problem with these discussions is that most of you have all your knowledge of China filtered through and adjusted to fit a particular worldview. None of you show the slightest interest in trying to access Chinese news sources, Chinese social media, or engaging with Chinese citizens on any real level. You acknowledge the ignorance of others when it comes to trying to understand your culture or your people's worldview, when they don't speak Greek or Spanish or demonstrate a basic comprehension of your history, culture or religion, but turn around and talk with such a basic, fundamental level of ignorance about what China actually is, rather than what it is portrayed as, that it is hard to meaningfully engage with it. It's like listening to Tucker Carlson talk about Puerto Rican culture or politics. China and Chinese society have loads of problems, but you guys don't even know what they are, and any attempt to point this out is dismissed.


Ay Fasces, I have made threads about Puerto Rican politics and history and many things. But unfortunately, no one studies it in the mainland and they spout sheer lies all the time and believe the propaganda.

Tucker Carlson is a classic example of willful ignorance about PR.

People think that many developments on the island are about the people's will when in the US court systems it is specifically documented as undemocratic and it says so. Do people read these things? No. If the USA doesn't give democracy to islands in their unincorporated territories but wants to use the excuse of defending democracy for Taiwan? It rings false. But the intelligent thing to do is admit what the true motivations are for these nations like the PRC and the USA are about trying to defend their interests in the Pacific and the island chain trade routes. The USA gov't doesn't care about democracy. That is a big lie.

Is multi polarity important as a world emerging after the old Cold War? A good topic for a future thread.

I got interested in Chinese and specifically Taiwanese history in college and took a course. My professor was Dr. Wei. A Taiwanese man and scholar. It is interesting.

Why aren't there more people interested in taking these electives if they are from my background? Because it is all about feeding people propaganda about what is the 'moral' thing. The moral thing is to study a nation's history, language and political events so that you can barely start the process of understanding the complexities of that culture. Otherwise you believe a bunch of trash generated by some news that a wealthy industrialist owns and has invested in the trade routes that the USA is protecting with bullshit about Chinese realities that are kind of simplistic and twisted.



Rossello was removed for massive corruption and laughing about shooting the mayor of San Juan in the head.

Rossello is the statehood party and they SUCK. This is why:



Independence is growing @Fasces but if we do get to be the majority the USA will or might deny it. Why? Bankers who want to own us without our consent to govern ourselves.

Then I am supposed to think the USA government is into democratic rights? When even that conservative ex-governor ousted for mass corruption thinks the USA is hypocritical?

I don't believe the excuse that the USA wants to fight for democracy. It flies in the face of its own behavior in the Caribbean, Latin America, Philippines, etc. they don't care about that. They care about MONEY and geopolitical military positions.
#15171369
Tainari88 wrote:
Why aren't there more people interested in taking these electives if they are from my background? Because it is all about feeding people propaganda about what is the 'moral' thing. The moral thing is to study a nation's history, language and political events so that you can barely start the process of understanding the complexities of that culture. Otherwise you believe a bunch of trash generated by some news that a wealthy industrialist owns and has invested in the trade routes that the USA is protecting with bullshit about Chinese realities that are kind of simplistic and twisted.



Countries influenced by Abrahamic religions have a very dogmatic and moralistic approach to their world view that was very hard for me to see until I lived in countries free of that influence. There is a huge sense of intrinsic and value-based "good and evil" which inherently dehumanizes the opposition as an enemy not worth considering that is largely absent in the political cultures of most of Asia. I am aware of it, though still afflicted by it myself. This thought-virus closes people's minds and makes willful ignorance a virtue, so you get bullshit commentary like you mentioned.

I fully believe most oligarchs are sociopathic, on some level of not fully, and thus mostly free of this thought virus, not that it stops them from using it to advance their material interests.
#15171414
Fasces wrote:Democracies which act against US interests get replaced by autocracies that defend them with staggering regularity in US history.


"with staggering regularity"? Is that why people always come up with the same two examples, namely Chile and Iran? Both bad examples anyway, because in both there was internal conflict between institutions and no "democratic side".

Even if those were good examples, I acknowledged capitalism is (particulary was) an important factor as well.

Fasces wrote:You're simply naive.


Not at all. I have an interest in maintaining the democratic regime in my country and I (sometimes reluctantly) acknowledge that the US plays a role in that. No doubt that is much more true for countries right next to Russia and China.
#15171460
Rugoz wrote:"with staggering regularity"? Is that why people always come up with the same two examples, namely Chile and Iran? Both bad examples anyway, because in both there was internal conflict between institutions and no "democratic side".


This is historically inaccurate.

The USA likes to demonise its opponents before attacking them, thus the propaganda against Allende. When you look at the actual facts, Allende was no more anti-democratic than many “western” politicians.

But if you want other examples, there are many. US pressure against democratically elected regimes in Venezuela, several regime changes in Haiti, the invasion of Grenada, putting Noriega into power, the contras in Nicaragua, support for the El Salvador dictatorship during the civil war, and other examples in Uruguay and Central America.

Please note that this is just Latin America. We could also talk about putting Saddam Hussein into power, the ongoing violence in Yemen, support for the Taliban, and other “Old World” examples,

Even if those were good examples, I acknowledged capitalism is (particulary was) an important factor as well.


Yes, the main reason for destroying democracies and establishing dictatorships was for capitalism.

Not at all. I have an interest in maintaining the democratic regime in my country and I (sometimes reluctantly) acknowledge that the US plays a role in that. No doubt that is much more true for countries right next to Russia and China.


And the developing world is also interested in maintaining or having democracy and we acknowledge that the USA plays in a role in making that difficult. This is probably truer for Latin America.

But this also explains why so many developing countries see China as a better ally.
#15171481
noemon wrote:There is Greece 1967-1974. US and Britain organized a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Greece and replace it with a CIA junta that lasted until 1974.


A quick google search suggests this is a conspiracy theory:

As Talbot predicted, to this day, many rue the events of April 21. Moreover, many resent those
responsible for the events of that historic date in Greek history. As the evidence above shows,
however, the U.S. government is not guilty for the tragedy of April 21. The United States
discouraged conspirators who suggested a military takeover might be the solution to Greece’s
political crisis in the mid-1960s. The United States had no foreknowledge of the Colonels’ plot
specifics. And the United States, once presented with the coup as fait accompli, expressed
disdain for the overthrow of democracy. Combined, these facts not only weaken the case of
conspiracy theorists, they exonerate the Johnson administration.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/Hellenic-Observat ... aper15.pdf

As far as the aspect of US intervention is concerned, it is evident that the
US stance towards the Colonels was directly related to its strategic interests in
Greece and the region as a whole. The military facilities that Greece provided to
the US were considered important for blocking the Soviets’ access to the Mediterranean Sea.
The strategic location of Greece in the eastern Mediterranean and
her ethnic ties with Cyprus, an equally strategic point, forced the US to turn a
blind eye to the Colonels’ violation of democratic principles and thus ensure
stability and supremacy in the region. Within the same context, establishing a
pattern of friendship between Greece and Turkey was also vital to the interests
of the alliance. However, no official documentation suggests that the US was
involved in the imposition of a military coup in Greece, despite its apparent
national interests in the region of the eastern Mediterranean.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48602566?s ... b_contents

Pants-of-dog wrote:The USA likes to demonise its opponents before attacking them, thus the propaganda against Allende. When you look at the actual facts, Allende was no more anti-democratic than many “western” politicians.


Allende wasn't the only democratic side in Chile, Congress was opposed to him, that's why it ended in a civil conflict.

Pants-of-dog wrote:But if you want other examples, there are many. US pressure against democratically elected regimes in Venezuela, several regime changes in Haiti, the invasion of Grenada, putting Noriega into power, the contras in Nicaragua, support for the El Salvador dictatorship during the civil war, and other examples in Uruguay and Central America.

Please note that this is just Latin America. We could also talk about putting Saddam Hussein into power, the ongoing violence in Yemen, support for the Taliban, and other “Old World” examples,


The US acted very late against Maduro, when it was already clear he was a de facto dictator. The US didn't put Saddam into power and what was democratic about Yemen or Soviet-occupied Afghanistan?

The rest I don't recall.
#15171483
Rugoz wrote:A quick google search suggests this is a conspiracy theory:


It isn't. Greek scholars calling it a "conspiracy theory" is simply a way to re-engage with the US.

From the same papers:

There are three factors that are frequently high-lighted to suggest American blameworthiness: (1)
the Athens Embassy favored a covert operation to prevent the Papandreous from coming to
power; (2) the junta that staged the coup had connections to the American intelligence
community; and (3) the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Greece did not resist the
coup—which was likely executed via a NATO plan—on the morning it occurred. There is
evidence to support these propositions.
But do any of the claims prove American responsibility?


Yes they do. It requires severe mental acrobatics to bypass the very real evidence and circumstances that led to the coup or to underestimate the relationship of KYP and the CIA, being purely its branch in Greece.

Second, the junta leaders had connections to the American intelligence community, given
the strong relationship that existed between the CIA and the KYP. In fact, the American
intelligence community had been monitoring a group of Greek military officers who were
discontent with the political system and conspiring to overthrow democracy, if things did not
improve to their liking. Reports were being submitted to Washington that mentioned a possible
coup could be staged by a group of officers known as the “Revolutionary Council.”59 The
leaders of the Revolutionary Council just so happened to be some of the same officers that staged
the coup of April 21, 1967
.
#15171484
Rugoz wrote:Allende wasn't the only democratic side in Chile, Congress was opposed to him, that's why it ended in a civil conflict.


The fact that more than one side was looking for democratic solutions only underscores how the USA supported a dictatorship.

The US acted very late against Maduro, when it was already clear he was a de facto dictator.


No, the US was acting before Maduro ever got into power, He was also not a dictator.

The US didn't put Saddam into power and what was democratic about Yemen or Soviet-occupied Afghanistan?

The rest I don't recall.


Yes, the USA put Hussein into power.

And you seem to ignore the regularity with which the USA supports Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships.

To tie this back to the topic, we can look at how the USA dealt with Cuba as compared to China. The US landed an invasion force to put Batista into power, while China has helped them develop a petroleum industry.

All this to say that the USA does not care at all about Taiwanese democracy and would support Taiwan just as easily if it was a capitalist dictatorship.
#15171507
Rugoz wrote:Allende wasn't the only democratic side in Chile, Congress was opposed to him, that's why it ended in a civil conflict.


Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that more than one side was looking for democratic solutions only underscores how the USA supported a dictatorship.


What "democratic" solutions was each side looking for?

It seems to me neither side was looking to make any compromises. Allende and the UP were unwilling to admit their failure, with the hardliners still stupidly believing they could pull a Marxist Revolution like in Czechoslovakia on February 1948 and the moderates supporting government repression of worker protests (particularly copper miners) by force by mid 1973, leading to a fissure within their camp. Congress and the opposition that had managed to get a majority in both chambers? The lower chamber got to the point to issue an infamous call to remove Allende by force in August 1973 for violating the Constitution, which should say enough. The military? Coup plotting had been going on since at least 1972 (as reported by State Department communications, which also mention that the US got requests to support a coup on September that year. The Americans' decision was to play dumb and provide no response), and once the only big stop (Prats) was out the dice was cast. The Americans? They preferred to get rid of Allende through an election, but if it came to a coup they did not mind as long as Allende was out and they weren't directly involved (they weren't, it was the Chilean military's decision), their primary interest was to get rid of Marxists in Latin America no matter what. Other Western democracies? They didn't care enough to get involved in any significant way. The Cubans and Soviets? They seem to have completely abandoned Allende by September 1973.

Chilean democracy had effectively died by at least mid 1973, and I'd say it had died by 1972 even, when military coup plotting became serious and Allende was forced to get high ranking officers into his cabinet as ministers as a way to get a "military bailout".

I'm betting most of the other examples of American intervention are similar in that regard, i.e. the conditions that sustained liberal democracy had already waned in those cases.

And yes, the US won't go on and act as the big democracy enforcer anywhere. Such a thing does not exist and, for that matter, the US never had any issues in having the Kuomintang as an ally before democracy made its way in Taiwan. The US was who kept Taiwan as the representative in the UN in 1971 (until they decided to drop them as means to deepen the Sino-Soviet split), and the US guarantees date from the Sino-American defense treaty of 1955 and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Taiwan was not a democracy back then. Yet, a democratic Taiwan does make the US' life and foreign policy much easier and thus it's their preference, too, to deal with a democratic government in the island... But it's not a deal breaker if it can't.
#15171516
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, the US was acting before Maduro ever got into power, He was also not a dictator.


Obama did nothing of substance. When Trump came to power Maduro was already firmly entrenched. Not that anything could/should have been done about it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the USA put Hussein into power.


It did not, look it up.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you seem to ignore the regularity with which the USA supports Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships.


That wasn't even the question. It's about whether the US helped to turn democracies into autocracies to support their foreign policy goals. It's at best a very rare occurrence, I have yet to find a convincing case.
#15171524
Rugoz wrote:Obama did nothing of substance. When Trump came to power Maduro was already firmly entrenched. Not that anything could/should have been done about it.


There is evidence of US destabilising Venezuela in 2002.

Again, you can nitpick about specific regime changes that the US was involved in, but it does not refute the central point that the USA is not about supporting democracy abroad and is about supporting capitalism.

It did not, look it up.


Believe what you want.

Many Iraqi officials claim to have evidence that the CIA supplied the Ba’ath party and Hussein with intelligence that helped them purge leftists during and after the coup, and the CIA even admits yo having planned to do so.

And the support for Iraq during the war with Iran is a matter of public record.

That wasn't even the question. It's about whether the US helped to turn democracies into autocracies to support their foreign policy goals. It's at best a very rare occurrence, I have yet to find a convincing case.


I literally just gave you a list of these regime changes in Latin America. Let me know if you need more info about any of them.

And if Taiwan was completely undemocratic and still helped the US achieve its goals, the US would still be supporting it just as much. Like their support for the Saudis.
#15171591
Rugoz wrote:That wasn't even the question. It's about whether the US helped to turn democracies into autocracies to support their foreign policy goals. It's at best a very rare occurrence, I have yet to find a convincing case.


I know that the case of Greece is a very convincing case as a lot of evidence exists, I am not familiar with the South American cases but I am certain more cases equally as convincing as the Greek case very likely exist as well. It is also logical because...

If US policy-makers calculate that the democratic options available on the table are unsuitable to them then they will do anything to increase their options including looking at autocracies and dictatorships to support their foreign policy goals.

I will repost what I posted in the other thread here and then some -as I can not split a post- just to buttress the point about US involvement in the Greek junta.

If a democratic government went against "US interests" or the perception of them even rhetorically, then that democratic government did not last very long.

President Johnson was very candid to the Greek ambassador just a couple of years before the coup:

President Lyndon Johnson to the Greek Ambassador of the US-June 1964 wrote:
Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long.


US and Britain organized a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Greece in 1967 and replace it with a CIA junta that lasted until 1974. The partition of Cyprus could be used at the time as a lever to control both Greece and Turkey and it would ensure that the British bases would remain on the island. Today those calculations no longer make any sense but 'c'est la vie'. The partition of Cyprus was enacted by Henry Kissinger in 1973(the first time in history, even to this date a Secretary of State, controlled the CIA due to Nixon's and Agnew's scandals) when the democratically-elected government of Cyprus was removed by Henry Kissinger by utilising both the Greek and Turkish juntas in place.

In 1954, after Britain failed to hand over Cyprus to Greece despite offering it twice in return for Greek entry in WW1 and again in WW2(where in both cases, Greek entry was decisive for the outcome of the war), Greece put the Cyprus matter to the UN in the name of self-determination.

The UN meeting was cancelled in 1955 when the Turks pogromed the Greeks of Istanbul, the Turkish government had created a false-flag operation in their Consulate in Greece by setting off a bomb in their own consulate(Ataturk's birth-house for which the Turkish PM was tried and eventually hanged I believe). Once they set-off the bomb in their consulate, they had mobs ready to attack the Greek population of Istanbul, destroy their houses and shops in broad day-light, events for which the British were directly complicit:

Constantinople Pogrom wrote:The Greek government had appealed in 1954 to the United Nations to demand self-determination for Cyprus. Britain had a ruling mandate over the mostly ethnic Greek island, and wanted the Cyprus dispute to be resolved without being taken to the United Nations Security Council, due to fears of how the Greek and Greek Cypriot parties would portray the conflict.[13][22] To this end, the British government resolved to temper Greek demands by encouraging the Turkish government to publicly express their support for Turkish-Cypriot cause, which they estimated would ensure the issue would not reach the UN Security Council. British reports from the period made disparate assessments on the state of Greco-Turkish relations; one by the British Embassy on August 1954 stated that the relationship was of a superficial nature and that a minor source of tension, such as a hypothetical Greek destruction of Atatürk's house in Thessaloniki, would cause permanent damage; while an official of the Foreign Office said that a stern stance towards Greece would be to Turkey's benefit. MP John Strachey warned that Turkey had a large ethnic Greek minority in Istanbul as a card to play against Greece if it considered annexing an independent Cyprus against the wishes of Turkish-Cypriots.

Finally, the conference fell apart on 6 September, the first day the subject of Cyprus would be broached at the conference,[26] when news broke of the bombing of the Turkish consulate (and birthplace of Atatürk) in Greece's second-largest city, Thessaloniki.
[14][23]


At the time the Turkish population of Cyprus was about 15%, when the UN conference eventually took place, the Americans:

LSE paper on US participation in the Greek junta 1967-1974 wrote:
As Peurifoy’s memorandum acknowledges, the United States, at times, pursued its interests in Greece with a heavy-hand. As a result, the Greek people began to resent America’s “leadership.” By December 1954, American symbols were coming under attack. The “disengagement” of the Greek people from America’s preferred course was meticulously discussed in 1957.

In a 15-page memorandum, James K. Penfield, a political officer at the American Embassy in Greece, observed:

When the Greek public sees its desires with respect to Cyprus supported without stint in the United Nations by the Afro-Asian Bloc, by Tito, and, however tardily and hypocritically, by the Soviet Bloc, and sees the United States and each of its partners in NATO either thwart those desires or remain indifferent or neutral toward them, it lends an ever more receptive ear to those who in public speeches and in the daily press ask what Greece’s ties to the West have gained her and why she should continue to maintain them. . . . We and our policies have become less popular with the Greeks in recent years and months and we see no evidence of the existence of any force which will reverse this trend in the immediate future, barring an immediate settlement of the Cyprus issue in a manner satisfactory to Greece or a very large increase in the amount of American economic assistance.

The memo insisted, “We are not winning the battle for the Greek mind.” This led Penfield to conclude: We are passing through a period when our influence and prestige among the Greek people and with the Greek Government are undergoing a reassessment and readjustment in a changed world situation. We can no longer be as certain as we have been in the past that we shall have Greece’s support in foreign policy matters that are critical to us. . . . Unless [the reasons for disengagement] are corrected, however, there is a distinct possibility that Greece will find herself ultimately in the neutral bloc or in a “non-bloc” alignment where, we have reason to fear, a growing number of Greeks today are already finding themselves psychologically.

We have reached a new stage in Greek-American relations in which many of our decade-old assumptions and rules-of-thumb are no longer valid.


The Americans created an anti-American public by supporting the enemies of Greece, and then to ensure that Greece stayed in line, they imposed a CIA dictator to ensure compliance(instead of simply correcting their own course as requested by Penfield). Doubling down on both the stupidity & the hubris. The Cyprus matter has been haunting, not just the Cypriots but also the Greeks and today Americans, Anglo's, Europeans and the west as a whole who in hindsight may be able to see the error of their ways.

US policy readjustment in Greece begun with Bill Clinton who publicly apologized for US support for the junta during a visit in 1999 but the policy was only really changed with Obama and more properly adjusted with Biden.

The US was definitely guilty of the 1967-1974 Coup in Greece, first of all the dictator himself was an official CIA agent, second, the US had full and extensive prior knowledge of the coup, third the US openly supported the new junta regime with both arms and money, fourth the US embassy had active plans to instigate a military coup in the event the Center Union party was about to come to power, which it would with the greatest majority ever recorded in Greek history(even to this day). Lots of 'firsts, even to this day'.

Fourth, and more importantly consider this. Why would the Greek military dictator remove the 20k strong Greek army from Cyprus and then instigate a coup against the Greek government of Cyprus without an actual army to see it through?

Another major hubris that cost more prestige than it gained for the Americans was the destruction of Yugoslavia.

In both cases, the US, Britain and the allies went against their own allies during both World Wars.

In conclusion, you are correct in so far as US policy concerns Taiwan while Fasces is correct about historical US policy in the abstract. Fasces use of the abstract to build a case for the particular in Taiwan is definitively false and in bad faith as well.

Moreover, it is both unwise and improper(at least for irrelevant laymen) to sidestep the realities of the people involved namely the people of Taiwan and make them secondary to great power narratives.
#15172782
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is evidence of US destabilising Venezuela in 2002.

Again, you can nitpick about specific regime changes that the US was involved in, but it does not refute the central point that the USA is not about supporting democracy abroad and is about supporting capitalism.


It's about both.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Believe what you want.

Many Iraqi officials claim to have evidence that the CIA supplied the Ba’ath party and Hussein with intelligence that helped them purge leftists during and after the coup, and the CIA even admits yo having planned to do so.


Saddam had a long and successful career in the Baath party. I literally cannot find anything about CIA involvement in his rise to power.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I literally just gave you a list of these regime changes in Latin America. Let me know if you need more info about any of them.


Throwing stuff at me to see what sticks? This is not how that works, pick your most convincing case.

To me that clearly seems to be Chile. We know that Nixon wanted Allende gone:

Admittedly, one primary cause of the
confusion about the 1973 coup is the
unquestionable fact that the United States
helped launch an earlier coup attempt
against Allende. In September 1970,
after Allende finished first in a threeway
presidential election, Nixon summoned CIA Director Richard Helms to
the White House and told him in no
uncertain terms to foment a preventive
coup—one that would keep Allende from
taking office despite his victory. The
leadership of the agency believed that
any attempt to keep Allende from taking
office would fail and also lead to bloodshed,
especially in the short time frame
Nixon demanded. But Nixon believed
that it was essential to U.S. interests to
try it and ordered the CIA to conceal
the plans from the U.S. ambassador
to Chile and other U.S. officials in the
country. The plot came to be known as
Track II—a secret complement to Track
I, the political and propaganda effort
that Washington had mounted earlier
to keep Allende from being elected in
the first place.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483554?s ... b_contents

So the lack of US involvement in the 1973 coup is hardly exculpatory.

noemon wrote:US and Britain organized a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Greece in 1967 and replace it with a CIA junta that lasted until 1974.


Condoning a coup after the fact is not the same as organizing it or even encouraging it (though it's certainly fair to argue that expected US condonement is relevant for the plotters).

That LSE paper you keep citing, which is really my only source besides Wiki and that other paper I cited, clearly states that the circumstancial evidence of US sponsorship is unconvincing (a la the US had connections and a motive hence it must have been behind it) and that declassifed official documents don't support it at all.
#15172812
Rugoz wrote:It's about both.


No. The history shows clear examples of supporting dictatorships for the purpose of enriching US conpanies.

Saddam had a long and successful career in the Baath party. I literally cannot find anything about CIA involvement in his rise to power.


The information is out there.

I assume you found the picture with Rumsfeld, and you know about US support of Iraq during the war with Iran.

Throwing stuff at me to see what sticks? This is not how that works, pick your most convincing case.

To me that clearly seems to be Chile. We know that Nixon wanted Allende gone:


As long as we agree that the USA has a long history of unilaterally changing regimes in the developing world to enrich US companies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483554?s ... b_contents

So the lack of US involvement in the 1973 coup is hardly exculpatory.


The US was involved in the 1973 coup, so I have no idea why you think they were not involved.
#15172822
Pants-of-dog wrote:
No. The history shows clear examples of supporting dictatorships for the purpose of enriching US conpanies.





It helps if one studies history.

I was writing a paper on Nicaragua and found that Americans (not just the government) had messed with the country something like 18 times (this was over 40 years ago, the number may be a bit off).

We've been busy.

My understanding was that the CIA was involved in Argentina, they definitely supported Saddam.

But the real nightmare is how we have used other countries, like when we got Saddam to go to war with Iran. Because they embarrassed us. That's above the CIA's pay grade.
#15172825
Pants-of-dog wrote:The information is out there.

I assume you found the picture with Rumsfeld, and you know about US support of Iraq during the war with Iran.


Your "debating style" is truly garbage.

If the info is supposedly "out there", point me to it.

The Iran-Iraq war is irrelevant to the question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The US was involved in the 1973 coup, so I have no idea why you think they were not involved.


Because the sources I read say so, for example the paper I linked to. The CIA planned a coup in 1970, not in 1973.
#15172826
Rugoz wrote:Your "debating style" is truly garbage.

If the info is supposedly "out there", point me to it.

The Iran-Iraq war is irrelevant to the question.


Considering the fact that you have presented no evidence whatsoever and your only rebuttal has been to dismiss and ignore evidence, I think I am doung quite well with my debating style.


    "The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem [General Abdel Karim Kassem] in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officials who were involved in the coup.
    There is evidence that they [CIA] supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup.
    I have documented over 700 people who were eliminated, mostly on an individual basis, after the 1963 coup. And they were eliminated based on lists supplied by the CIA to the Ba'ath Party. So the CIA and the Ba'ath were in the business of eliminating communists and leftists who were dangerous to the Ba'ath's takeover.
    And what gave the whole program of acquiring unconventional weapons an impetus was in the 1970s. The main aim of the West was to pry Saddam away from Russia. And in order to do that , they were bribing him. They were giving him everything he wanted. In the 1980s, the reasons changed [for helping Saddam]. ...Khomeini appeared on the scene and the West decided that Saddam was the lesser of two evils. And they continued to support him and give him what he wanted. In this case, including credit."

    Jan. 25, 2000 - Said K. Aburish

The man speaking was an Iraqi government official at the time.

https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers. ... nID=000887

And yes, the open support given to Iraq during the war with Iran is relevant. Since the claim is that the US supports dictators, and that is an example thereof.

Because the sources I read say so, for example the paper I linked to. The CIA planned a coup in 1970, not in 1973.


The fact that they intervened in 1970 gives support to the claim that they also intervened in 1973. It does not magically disprove the claim.
#15172833
Pants-of-dog wrote:

    "The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem [General Abdel Karim Kassem] in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officials who were involved in the coup.
    There is evidence that they [CIA] supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup.
    I have documented over 700 people who were eliminated, mostly on an individual basis, after the 1963 coup. And they were eliminated based on lists supplied by the CIA to the Ba'ath Party. So the CIA and the Ba'ath were in the business of eliminating communists and leftists who were dangerous to the Ba'ath's takeover.
    And what gave the whole program of acquiring unconventional weapons an impetus was in the 1970s. The main aim of the West was to pry Saddam away from Russia. And in order to do that , they were bribing him. They were giving him everything he wanted. In the 1980s, the reasons changed [for helping Saddam]. ...Khomeini appeared on the scene and the West decided that Saddam was the lesser of two evils. And they continued to support him and give him what he wanted. In this case, including credit."

    Jan. 25, 2000 - Said K. Aburish

The man speaking was an Iraqi government official at the time.

https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers. ... nID=000887



WTF has 1963 to do with it? It's about Saddam's power grab in 1979.

Also, the quote sounds like typical made-up propaganda garbage (700 killed based on CIA hit lists yadda yadda).

The problem is that every idiot out there has claimed the CIA was involved in XYZ but declassified documents don't confirm it. You have to assume the CIA went rogue or destroyed any documentation of its operations.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And yes, the open support given to Iraq during the war with Iran is relevant. Since the claim is that the US supports dictators, and that is an example thereof.


Something I never questioned, as I've said repeatedly already.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that they intervened in 1970 gives support to the claim that they also intervened in 1973. It does not magically disprove the claim.


I'm saying people confuse 1973 with 1970.
#15172834
Documents from the time disprove the latter. The US wasn't involved and we know that because we can see the internal reaction to it, and also some prior cables prior to it. The 1970 assassination of Schneider (which was indeed a coup attempt, in full, as was discussed in those terms within the Nixon administration), too, was something the US actually pulled back from at the eleventh hour but it was too late (eventually, the US thought it would fail but the CIA agents in Chile had already gotten in contact with Viaux). There are also some other extra interesting details about it, for instance, Nixon personally ordered that the State Department was kept out of the loop and that all planning for the fiasco would be kept secret from it. That led to some rather embarrassing stuff for the US ambassador, who legitimately didn't know what was going on.

If you want we can go through them. Those cables are actually public and easily accessible on the web.

The only thing I agree with @Pants-of-dog is that the US won't hesitate to topple a democratic government if it turned against its key interests, not even business interests but broad national security ones. Neither would the Soviets, the Europeans, the Latin American governments themselves, etc.
#15172838
Rugoz wrote:WTF has 1963 to do with it? It's about Saddam's power grab in 1979.

Also, the quote sounds like typical made-up propaganda garbage (700 killed based on CIA hit lists yadda yadda).

The problem is that every idiot out there has claimed the CIA was involved in XYZ but declassified documents don't confirm it. You have to assume the CIA went rogue or destroyed any documentation of its operations.


So the CIA was observed to be involved with Hussein even before his 1979 power grab.

Your dismissal of this evidence is based on your opinion of leftists and not based on actual evidence.

Something I never questioned, as I've said repeatedly already.


Yes, history has many examples of the US supporting dictatorships in the name of capitalism.

I'm saying people confuse 1973 with 1970.


Maybe. Whether or not people get confused does not seem relevant.

Both years can serve as evidence that the US does not support democracy abroad but instead supports capitalism abroad.
#15172841
Rugoz wrote:That LSE paper you keep citing, which is really my only source besides Wiki and that other paper I cited, clearly states that the circumstancial evidence of US sponsorship is unconvincing (a la the US had connections and a motive hence it must have been behind it) and that declassifed official documents don't support it at all.


The LSE paper by a Greek-American apologist of the US gives you more than enough evidence to conclude that the US was directly responsible for the coup in Greece, even though the paper itself "concludes that for court circumstances there is reasonable doubt for the US being behind it" :lol: US Court circumstances is the standard that the paper is aiming for. :lol: And that should tell you something. Even OJ was released by US courts on the basis of reasonable doubt.

But if that is not enough I gave you even more( .ie the removal of the army from Cyprus, the dictator being an official CIA agent) than that because the LSE paper ignores a couple of things to reach to its prefered conclusion. Nevertheless, any person reading that entire paper from start to finish reads so many evidentiary details that the author is trying to explain away, that there is absolutely no chance that a thinking person can come out of this reading with the same conclusion as the paper.

Read those 10-15 pages from start to finish and then tell me if you are convinced or not.

How do you explain the fact that the Greek dictator was an official CIA agent? The paper explains it away as "coincidence and no smoking gun, mmmkay" How does one explain that the same dictatorship removed the 20k strong Greek army from Cyprus and then instigated a coup to remove the Greek President of Cyprus? :eh: The paper does not even mention that because that would be too much to explain.

How does one explain the fact the US embassy had [fully-published] detailed plans of a coup in Greece involving the same people who actually carried out the coup? The paper says it, makes no excuse for it and just bypasses it.

How does one explain the fact that President Johnson openly threatened the Greek ambassador with a coup just 2 years before the coup?

There is quite a lot of convincing argument here there to tackle.
Lawlessness in San Fransisco

CNN was showing this video and it really struck a[…]

CRT

The reality is that the damage racism does, in a […]

My Daddy goes to church every Sunday and consider[…]