Thank you Superbelt. I'll read up.

About Rummy and Cheney:

How much of our policies do they actually dictate within their positions in the administrations they've served? Is this possible to know?

I know that the president is ultimately responsible for their actions, but I'm curious about how much they may or may not do on their own.

This type of stuff honestly pisses me off. I'm glad I am not in charge of international relations and have to decide who gets what and why from our country. It seems like a losing situation in many ways. Isolationism doesn't seem to work because as our countries move towards globalization, the problems of other countries eventually become our problems too, i.e. AIDS.

The propping up of dictators is a good way to get derailed later on. Like I said about Hussein ealier, I know its our mess, its unfortunate that it is our mess, but I'm glad that we are cleaning it up.

little bit more,
All with independent sources.
http://www.rehberg.net/arming-iraq.html
[quot]March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10) [/quote]

MUSTARD GAS. The same stuff they had been using for over a decade already to kill tens of thousands of their own people and Iranians!

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Yet once they go into kuwait and start slaughtering people, and the UN threatens to go in... WE become the Knight in shining armor saving the poor Kuwaiti's from that evil man who we have but a passing relationship with.....

I really don't know how much they have to do policy wise, but they have held high level policy positions for a long time now. Reports on Bush are that he relies very heavily on his advisors. So things that we are doing in Uzbekistan and EG, I think they are almost entirely the product of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I agree that Saddam is our mess to clean up. We have to fix the problems those who came before us created. I agree with the action, but not the execution and reasons stated for doing it. I also don't agree with the leaders we have trying to take the "high road" on Iraq but still being scum regarding other countries.

And that is why this stuff pisses me off so much because I want to see us STOP creating these problems. I don't want my kids having to go into Uzbekistan and depose Islam Karimov 20 some years from now because we had a president who made the same bad decisions as his father. I want to show people why Bush must not be elected again, for this exact reason.

And hopefully, through the message boards I go to I can sway a few more people away from Bush.

Thanks Superbelt, great post.. and these were not as biased as the one I found. :)

I've waded through most of this trying to figure out what many of you seem to see as being the your solution to the problem. What seems to come from this is that we should elect the ex-governor of the most rural state in the U.S. (http://www.vtchamber.com/about_vt/106.html) to the presidency. You and he tout his claim to experience and ability to govern to the fact that he was once the Governor of the State of Vermont. Not attempting to belittle the state of Vermont in the least, because about all I know about it is that maple syrup is produced there, but I don't see how governing a huge population such as this - approx. 600,000 people (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html) gives him anything approaching the ability to head the government of the most powerful nation on earth. His expression of his ability to deal with foreign policy, as was expressed today, might hint that a return to Vermont might be best for all concerned.

The same was said about a governor from Texas, and a governor from Arkansas. I personally think that as long as the candidate has some executive experience, he'll do alright.

Hindsight is 20/20, none of us thought that the Soviet Union would fall as soon as it did. Not a single country, intelligence service, or newspaper did. So we saw Hussein, bin Laden and others as way to kill the Bear. We didn't create the Ayatollah of Iran, while we may have ignored the warning signs because we were focused on not glowing in the dark, we didn't create him. Like it or not, politicians in general take a very Machiavellian approach in dealing with affairs. They're more interested in getting things done now and the aftershocks be damned, we're the United Fucking States of America, we can handle anything. Well unfortunately when you cut back you're military and Human Intelligence you essentially tie your National Security hands behind your back. I can see where Moore is coming from, but on the other hand, he's a nut like Ann Coulter who is just out to make a buck and I hope people realize that.

Being Gov of Texas is a bit different from being Gov of Vermont - The city of Houston has four times the population of the state of Vermont - Then there's the other twenty or so million....

And see how Bush handled that state?

Houston passed Los Angeles as the most polluted city in the union.

And the school system of Texas has been abysmal.

The difference between Texas and Vermont may be large, but when you jump to the scale of the entire country, there is no experience that can compensate for that. The population differences between Texas and Vermont become moot at the Presidential level.

i'm not certain that population levels are neccesarily a good meter for executive experience either, but...

most pollution regulations that effect particular cities are handled at the municipal level. the mayor of Houston for the past 6 years is a former Clinton administration cabinet member, and a staunch liberal.

http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/citygovt...biography.html

Also, I agree that Texas schools have their problems, but I believe that education standards improved during the then Gov. Bush's tenure from where they were when he took over. Yay Ann Richards! So yes, the system is still struggling, but at least it was improving.

How about some alternatives Mr. Moore? How do you (or your supporters here) propose that we deal with countries that we NEED to deal with that have "inappropriate" leadership? Shall we go in and "liberate" them militarily? Should we send cards encouraging them to give up their evil ways? Shall we simply cut them off from the rest of the world via embargoes as we did with Iraq for a decade?

Let's see, can't intervene militarily because then you'd label us bullies. Can't embargo them because then we're killing the innocent civilians. They aren't going to be swayed by pleas of "doing what's right". So, come on, enlighten us neanderthals about the proper way to deal with such countries.

Oh wait, I know, if it was a Democrat in the White House, those protests wouldn't exist.

We aren't the parent to the world. We can't just go change things because we see them as wrong.
That is why the UN is important because, flawed and political as it is, it is the necessary channel to do anything. Otherwise we become the planet dictator.

The solution to the problem is, we have enabled enough dictators already to rise to power and oppress their people, we need to stop. The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world.
Without us creating monsters, there will be much less suffering than we can ever alleviate by destroying monsters with our military.

At the very least, not interfering allows it to continue. The UN is ineffective. At the first sign of trouble they pull out and rarely do they solve the problems they attempt to address. Monsters don't need our help to be created. In the vast majority of cases, we did not create the monsters, they were there and were the least offensive of the choices we had to deal with.

We have directly created (to the level of power they attained): Irans Shah, Saddam, Osama, Hernandez (Salvadoran Death Squads), Anastasio Somoza Garcia (Nicaragua) , Efrain Rios Mont (Guatemala) , Gustava Alvarez & Suazo Cordova (Honduras) , Noriega, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (Haiti), Islam Karimov (Uzbek), Taliban....

I could go on and on. Most of these people owe their power directly to the United States. They never would have overthrown their respective government without us.
They never would have killed the people they did, without us.
They never would have been in a position to rob their people or strip civil rights that we enjoy in america, as they did.

That's not true onetime2, several of the regimes the above monsters deposed were democracies. Others were communists, and the only reason we interfered was to slow the spread of communism, not for the good of the people.

The UN has been in India and Pakistan to try and keep the peace since the mid 50's. That is tenacity. And, I believe, the UN's track record is better than ours. Any good we have done since the UN was created is offset by the tremendous evil we have perpetrated in creating these beasts.

So, please tell me where the rest of the monsters we created are? "vast majority" is far from the few you point to.

Few? I gave you 11!
And those are just the ones I could get from memory. Mostly in, and most of, central american and parts of south america.

Anyone else want to chime in with some more names and situations they know of that we supported?

One more I remember, Castro.

I won't even bother debating all that you claim, as some were the most "favorable" option at the time, but even with the dozen you have named, how many countries have we dealt with? How many other people have we supported?

Do you really think the US prefers to put tyrants in power? Do you sincerely believe that, if a "good" alternative was available, we would choose the worst?

Pinochet and Idi Amin(EDIT: actually I'm not sure if the US supported Amin, perhaps not) immediately come to mind

EDIT:

Here's a list of 35 US-supported dictators -- clicking on their names explains how the US backed them.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaD.html

In sincerely believe that during the Cold War, the US believed it was better to give countries a dictator then to give them the freedom to choose their own government -- a choice that would allow them to choose communism.

Today, I believe that the US chooses leaders on the basis on what is good for the US over what is good for the country in question.

Of course one cannot be sure that the person chosen to rule a country will not turn out to be ruthless. But there is a solution -- the US can stop choosing other countries' rulers. The exploitation of US power to serve its self-interest through the manipulation of other governments is an intolerable practice.

I really think that if we can get a favorable deal out of someone that we would choose him over someone else.
Reagan used some of these men to overthrow several leftist democracies, because they were leftist. I can find the exact names out for you if you wish.

He also would choose a monster to take over a communist country. Reagan preferred a dictatorship over a communist country so close to america.

So, yes I believe we would choose the worst, for that region, but not to Reagans view of the world.

How do you claim that this coup against a democratically elected official was the better option than letting the citizens of a sovereign nation elect their own leader?

"The US Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, has released thousands of secret documents relating to covert operations in Chile before and during the period of military rule there.

Among the 16,000 documents is a CIA memorandum confirming US funded attempts to undermine the democratically elected Marxist president, Salvador Allende, who was overthrown in a bloody coup in 1973."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1022347.stm

I might as well post some more of the article in case people don't want to click on the link:

Now, that's a different argument. We are now debating why one alternative was more favorable to another, rather than a blanket statement saying that "The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world".

In Reagan's mind, communism was a bigger threat than a piss-ant dictatorship. He reasoned that the "greater good" would be served by not allowing communism to spread and generate more resources.

I absolutely agree that the US has been VERY short sighted in many situations. That needs to change. I disagree that it boils down to never "propping up" a "bad" person. Sometimes you have to do it.

As far as whether Reagan was right or wrong about communism, that's an entirely different thread.

Please reread my post. I did not comment on any of those situations. I merely put them in perspective against the hundreds or thousands of other dealings the US has had.

If you'd like to start a new thread about Allende, feel free. That's not what this thread is about.

No, the thread is about creating frankenstein's. We are presenting evidence that our administration creates them for our country's own interests in disregard of the rights of citizens in foreign countries to elect their own leaders--not due to some untenable decision between two enemies, as you claim.

But after re-reading your post, the answer to your question is that the US does prefer to put tyrants in power when they will cater to the economic interests of those in power. I'm not going to start a new thread to post the evidence in support of that assertion--it belongs right here in this post. If I didn't put it in here, you would be demanding that I track it down as you did earlier to Superbelt.


While no one has mentioned democratically elected Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, our coups don't just extend to leftist regimes as evidenced by this source:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...e_CIAHits.html

And this has what exactly to do with the current President Bush and Saddam?

/sigh

I think you are being facetious, but I'll answer your question in case you are serious.

You essentially accused Moore and his "supporters" of being irrational without suggestions. I'm presenting the case that we have a long history of a hypocritical stance that we are standard bearers of democracy. Besides the point fact that we shouldn't be meddling with or overthrowing democratic elections abroad on principle, the evidence certainly suggests that these actions lead to the scenarios we are currently in.

The reponses you are giving me indicate that you are unable to connect our historical acts with our current foreign dilemmas. They are not due to some blind hatred for our freedoms, they are rational responses to being on the blunt end of decades of bloody, imperialist actions.

This refusal or inability to make these connections places us in a dilemma and lead many of our citizens to walk around stupidly proclaiming that we haven't done anything to provoke the anger many citizens around the world feel towards us. How can we stop pissing people off if we don't believe we are in the wrong?

You asked what us "lefties" would have us do. I'm answering that while we might debate another day on the merits of toppling bloody dictators, we certainly should agree that we ought not have a hand in creating them. Superbelt already raised the point that we are currenlty doing exactly that. Then you suggested that our actions were motivated by altruism. So far, I haven't seen you post any of the "many" leaders we've installed that have actually helped their native citizens.

This all boils down to, and is relevant to, (adding on to what smooth said) Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea, which President Bush is now supporting.

History has taught us that this WILL NOT TURN OUT GOOD. Not whatsoever. This has the potential to cost many american lives down the line much like Iraq is now.
I can safely say there is no moral argument in favor of supporting either of these countries. It's downright evil.

As such, as good people, we cannot vote for George W Bush again. If the next President, Dean, Clark... whoever does the same thing, I would again campaign against them to get the Republican voted in office. This is a big deal and any person with who thinks they have a strong moral fiber has to pay attention to this and determine for themselves if they need to oppose Bush for supporting these torturers.

Because to support Bush is to also support those decisions. You are supporting a continuation of what we are doing in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

If you are supporting Bush, you are supporting this.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm

and this

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-GNQ

PLEASE read both of these articles.

Hmm, I guess you're right, we have NEVER helped create leadership which is kind to its people.

Germany, Japan, Korea, Russia, more recently, Liberia are inconsequential. Go on thinking that all the US does in the world is create bloody dictators, that our interests are never to do what's best for the world, or that we should stay out of international affairs, but the real world doesn't allow us that luxury.

Edit: I was going to leave your post alone with my above response, but I'm going to post this to clear something up.

I already stated earlier that I'm not trying to "win" something on an internet forum, merely discuss ideas. That stated, I don't appreciate you building a strawman.

I never stated that the US government hasn't helped create kind leadership. I stated that we have historically installed tyrants that suited our economic interests--not because we had to do so, but because we wanted to.

The examples you cite were collaborative efforts to rebuild countries after multi-national wars--not instances of "leaders we've installed", with the exception of Liberia. I don't even know why you cited Liberia, but it doesn't particularly bother me because at least I now know who is paying attention to world events and I'll discuss these issues further with them.

Thanks for the time and I'm sorry that you feel the need to argue in circles with me. I tried to lay out my opinion and answer your questions in a straightforward manner, but you appear to not have read my responses.

2nd EDIT: added italicized words to clarify my point to onetime2.

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av063003.shtml
http://www.uzland.uz/fact/bush6.jpg
Islam Karimov and Bush
I wonder, did he look into Karimov's eyes to determine his character before or after he agreed to give him 500 million dollars this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/160000...016uzbe150.jpg
Rumsfeld and Islam Karimov.
Repeating history.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20031207a1.htm
_____
Until we get someone in office who won't support this, and will instead put pressure on Karimov, we are complicit

Funny, it doesn't say anything about ruling out collaborative efforts.

Ditto.

onetime, tell me. On the issues of Uzbek and EG alone, what do you think of the morality? Don't take Bush's aggregate and average it out because to the Uzbeki's that is no consolation.

If you are a religious man, you know that one evil deed is enough, if you don't repent for it. Electing Bush based on Uzbekistan, for me, would be a major sin.

I am not informed enough to make specific comment on Bush's part in these things and, in all honesty, will not cast my vote because of them.

My answer needs to stray from the thrust of this thread (creating monsters) as you bring up the reelection of Bush, so I feel I need to communicate why, at this time, I will back him in the next election. Maybe I'm out of line in going this route, but this is the route my brain started taking when you said that he should not be judged in aggregate.

I can only make a general statement of my feelings on why Bush, even with his faults, is a better choice than the alternatives. There are MANY disturbing and horrible situations in the world. Some we can exert direct control over while others we can't. Given these facts, there is no choice but to lump activities/achievements together to judge the overall level of “good” or “bad” done by an administration.

When I look at the alternatives to Bush, I see a general lack of resolve to do what it takes to fight the war on terror in the short term, and that is one of my key decision points. People can argue all they want that this war is wrong or that somehow we brought it all on ourselves, they can point to the assinine things that Bush does, they can call him stupid and a liar and whatever else they choose. But, there are two phases to the war on terror, in my mind. One is the short term. That includes attacking those institutions (whether governmental, financial, religious, etc) who encourage, support, and fund the terrorist groups who target us. These attacks need to have military, governmental, economic, and even religious components. There have to be consequences to those who are providing support, there can be no weakness in resolve for winning this war. Failure to follow through to an end in this first stage of the war will do more harm to US international effectiveness and homeland security than the backing of a hundred Karimovs.

I absolutely agree that our past actions have contributed to the current situation. I also believe that our past inaction has contributed at least as much. The short-term strategy, as I see it, is to rattle the terrorist networks. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have helped in this regard but there is still more to do.

The second, and probably more important phase of the war on terror is the long-term strategy. Part of this is a new focus on the Middle East and international policies that support human rights, and I dare say, nation building. Certainly we are nowhere near where we need to be in supporting human rights as you point out in your examples and other examples show. We are willing to deal with China and North Korea while basically ignoring their violations. This has to change but without success in the first stage of the war, the second is sure to fail.

Is Bush the right person to lead the second phase? If I were to put money on it today, I’d say no without hesitation. But, I would also say that the alternatives to Bush for second phase success would draw the same bet and I have little belief in their short-term performance. It’s my hope that Bush will succeed in giving the US a position of strength to work from. If he is successful in creating some semblance of Democracy in Iraq (especially without full international support and virtually no support from the UN) then we have a much stronger bargaining position. I further believe that a prosperous democraticish (yeah I made it up, but I’m still not convinced that it will be a true democracy) Iraq will put pressure on surrounding countries who currently sponsor terrorism.

The reality is that the UN will not come in to help in Iraq no matter who sits in the White House. They will cut and run as soon as the “insurgents” kill some of their workers or some of their troops. This will completely undermine the slice of success we’ve had in the wot by reinforcing the terrorist belief that we have no stomach for war.

I’m sure you disagree with many points in here, and I’m glad about that. That’s all part of what makes our society interesting. But, to get back to your question, electing Bush (or any President) is not about just Uzbekistan, it’s about the aggregate and so far, for me, the aggregate of Bush outweighs anything the Dems have to offer.

Michael moore rules, that is all.

Superbelt,

Some of your better posts.

I find you much more convincing when you post sources and facts.

SB rules.

Thanks for the praise guys. This thread represents a fair amount of work on my part.

I would like to know if the information and arguments I have presented have got anyone thinking, and to what degree.
Was I able to convince anyone who previously was leaning Bush, to perhaps, at least reassess that?

I would especially like to know what Conclamo Ludus thinks, since it was he who solicited for this, really.