Michael Moore - We Finally Got Our Frankenstein
 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

-Snip-

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

For once, I agree with him. We created this mess. We promoted Hussein. We armed him. This is exactly why the war is justified -- we are responsible for him, and we are responsible for cleaning up after him and taking him out.

Ok if you agree with him you should also agree that creating more of these Frankensteins is the immoral thing to do and we shouldn't be electing leaders who would create more of them.

Such as the regimes Bush is now supporting in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

If you really agree that this is bad stuff, you really should read up on both countries current political climate and reassess voting Bush in '04. Doing otherwise may likely condemn hundreds of future american soldiers to death.

ahh michael moore. no one has played the emotional suckers for his own gain better than he. for your truly prodigious skill of numbing the mind, i salute you michael!

Pinochet.

This isn't playing to emotional suckers to me.

The way we dealt with Saddam over 20 years ago is the birth of the situation that has killed hundreds of americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's and other people.

We need to learn from this and stop electing those who would create these monsters that later generations are forced to suffer through.
Most of the guys who have died fighting there this past year weren't even alive when we started making deals with Saddam, (who was then an assassin. Great pick to install as Dictator!)

Correct. However, Dean or Clark or Lieberman or Gore or Clinton do not qualify to me as an elected leader who would not create more of them. I will continue to vote Libertarian, even if it is "throwing my vote away" as some claim.

Ooh no, I'm cool with third party votes. Go Seretogis! :)

You know I love liberals like Moore whining about things that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20. When Saddam came to power, the Arab states all said he would be reasonable and we should work with him etc. We were still in the cold war (remember that) and the thought of dealing with nuclear annihilation was on a lot of minds. When Saddams true nature became known the US stopped dealing with him, and then solved the problem once and for all. We have the moral high ground here, not the socialists in Europe who were happy to do business with him like France and Germany, LONG after he was a proven mass murderer.

This is an amazing non-issue.

Me too, run Nader run!

:D

No offense intended, but that's total crap. We did not have the moral high ground. We stuck our nose somewhere it didn't belong and we got burned for it, just like we did in Korea, Viet-Nam, Afghanistan (remember, WE trained bin Laden and funded him so he would fight the soviets. Oops.), Panama (CIA agent Noriega didn't work out real well for us did he?), Somalia, Mogadishu, Bosnia, Chile. . the list goes on. We as a nation have tricked ourselves into thinking we are the pinnacle of all that is good and holy, and we must force our ways on all who do not comply.

I for one am ready for a more isolationist policy. We were never elected to be the world's sheriff, and we should not be pretending to be a cop when we are not.

I think we all know that we supported Saddam before. I'm not sure what Michael Moore is suggesting. That we shouldn't have gone after him because we created him?

I agree with Seretogis, this mess was ours, and I'm glad we're cleaning it up.

As for electing officials who won't create monsters, this is pretty difficult to determine. I'm not up for leaders who dig us into holes with monsters, but I still wouldn't equate a vote for Bush to a vote for killing US soldiers as suggested.

Here is a question for you all. If you have a choise of picking a monster on your side or a monster not on your side, which monster do you pick?

Neither monster. Make your own path. Be that shining example for the world. Stick to your democratic principles.

Hindsight may be 20-20 but that hindsight gives us foresight into what we are doing now.

Which shouldn't be propping up other dictators like Uzbekistan and EG.
There is no difference between what Saddam was doing and what these monsters are doing right now. Today. And Bush knows it.

Gobbly gook. Letting your mortal enemies win to be an example of virtue leads to Christian martyrdom.

I don't think a monster on your side ever seems to pay off. It may in the short term but eventually it will blow up in your face. Supporting these enemies of humanity gives them a credibility with which to damage you later on. Although I agree that it isn't all that simple just to ignore them or to totally oppose all of them. International politics is too complex for this.

It's not "Gobbly gook" Iran was never a threat to us. We just wanted to get them back for deposing the Shah, who was giving us favorable oil contracts.

Superbelt raises a valid point in that we have no business installing leaders in foreign countries. That seems to fly in the face of our stated belief system.

Given our roots as a former colony, I can't imagine our founding framers being pleased with such actions.

Compound this with the fact that we have overthrown democratically elected officials numerous times for persons more aligned with our country's interests.

I don't understand how any patriotic US citizen can tolerate or defend such actions that blatantly violate our belief system.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ndshake300.jpg
Rumsfeld: Sure, 'Dam. We'll ignore the tortured pleading of your nations people.

Saddam: Thanks pal, now lets exchange contracts. Here's a dirt cheap one for oil exploration and one where I promise to kill some Iranians.

Rumsfeld: And to help you do that, heres an invoice for Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, a few chemistry kits and instructions for making your own mustard and Sarin gas.....

What I wouldn't give to have that picture on the front page of every newspaper in america for just one day....

You could use the headline "WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW." It wouldn't happen because it isn't news. There's no reason to show outdated pictures about outdated agreements. The picture and the story are irrelevant now.

No, what "we" (of political message boards) already know. Most americans haven't seen that picture and know nothing of what kind of deals we had with Iraq.

Hell between 30 and 40% of americans can't find this country on a map let alone their own state. You think they know anything of deals we have made with a dictator like Saddam?

I've heard it all over the nighlty news for a long time. Iraq timelines etc. Do the deals matter much anymore? Former administrations made these deals, and they are no longer in effect. I just don't understand what you are getting at from this picture.

Rumsfeld is the key, so is Cheney. Both were part of those former administrations and are now back. Along with Saddam, they should be facing their transgressions.

AND, they. are. doing. it. again.
in several different countries.

What are they're transgressions that they should be facing. Details? Sources?

Well for one thing, they tried to help Saddam build a nuclear plant, that Isreal later destroyed.

Oh wait, my bad, that was Chirac, never mind. :rolleyes:

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq2.jpg

Yeah, Michael Moore's right. We should all ignore the fact that we got him, and instead focus on mocking the president.

Whatever Mike - keep stuffing your face and shut up.

Well for starters, and as a place saver until I find a more complete list with sources.

Jets, RPG's, anthrax, West Nile Virus, some nuclear engineering contracts, mustard and Sarin gas...

All given to a man who started his relationship with us as an assassin.

What exactly are you guys arguing in support of?

Are you supportive of our government's tampering with the will of citizens of foreign countries?

Are you concerned that our past dealings with questionable and dangerous people in the past had consistently exacerbated the problems and bad-will abroad?

From a few statements in the past I realize that a few posters view this forum as an outlet for competition--a place for discussion becomes a venue for you to "win" the argument.

I can't think of a single time that we've aided a dictator to power that hasn't ended up harming our long-term interests. In the very least, I can't think of an occasion where it hasn't harmed innocent people--even if they weren't US citizens. On the one hand, people will state that the interests of our citizens is paramount. Yet, on the other, those same people, in a different argument, will claim to be motivated by altruism. I think this is bizarre reasoning and the only thing I can account for it is due to the belief that winning an argument is the objective--not rational discussion.

For example, Conclamo Ludus, you stated that the past dealings with Saddam were common knowledge. When Superbelt expressed the opinion that the public actually knows very little about our foreign affairs, you asked what the point of that assertion was. It was clear to me, and I suspect numerous people reading it, that the point is that unless we become aware of our foreign policies, we willt continue to place our long-term interests in jeopardy. If nothing else, we need to be informed before judging whether certain dealings are in our long-term interests.

Then you follow with a statement challenging whether members of our current administration have actually been involved in dealings with foreign dictators. This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that such dealings were common knowledge. Furthermore, I think you are aware of the things we are currently doing abroad, so I wonder what the intent of your challenge was.

Do you need Superbelt to "prove" that our government is currently bolstering the power of foreign dictators through direct and indirect dealings? Or are you just going to declare "victory" if he doesn't bother tracing down page after page from the International sections of any current newspaper editions?

In case people have ceased reading by now, I'll bold my point:

This is evidence that we ought not to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, their election of leaders, or rely on the less circumspect position that the "enemies of our enemies are somehow our allies."

I don't need Superbelt to prove anything, I have a thread on global warming waiting for him when he decides to prove something :p

Now, I would agree with you, in the cold war, I would not. The stakes are far different now then they were then as are the circumstances.

Excepting, of course, Carl Rove. Inflammatory, underhanded, media terrorists exist across the political spectrum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing the ones you disagree with, so long as you realize that there are equally scornworthy folks pushing agendas you might like.

Actually I'm just trying to get information. This one picture from the past is supposed to be evidence of treachery with which we are supposed to hold them accountable for. I've seen this picture a few times, and this picture is well known to me. There was nothing facetious about me asking for details and sources about the charges that SuperBelt is implying. I want to know just what he is trying to tell me.

As you can see from my earlier post, I agree with this sentiment, which is why I want to know what SuperBelt is suggesting. An old picture that I've seen about supporting Saddam is not enough. I would like to know what monsters they are supposedly creating currently as suggested.

Giving SuperBelt the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he just made this up, so if he has some details he can certainly pass them on as he did with that photo of Saddam with Rummy.

I fully realize the contradiction I made about the photo being common knowledge, and then asking for more information. What isn't common knowledge is the other transgression he is insinuating and I am requesting information so that we can further the discussion.

I'm not interested in winning arguments. I win when I learn something. So SuperBelt, I implore you, could you be more specific as to what we should be worried about with Cheney and Rummy. No harm in asking someone to provide information, its how we learn. One old photo on the front of every newspaper does not provide enough information. Which is perhaps why it wouldn't do any good to run it. What might do some good for your point, is to run it with a little more information.

Oooh, I remember this from the sneaky arguing thread. This is the technique where you give two choices where three or more exist.

I'll pick the "support no monsters" option, thanks.

You say Christian martyrdom like more Christian martyrs would be a bad thing. :)

You equate Carl Rove with Moore?

Surely Sir, you must be joking.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Moore is right, because that would set dangerous precedent, but I do agree with the fact that we should not thrust our money and technology into the hands of some two-bit dictator simply because it serves a short-term purpose for us to do so. We ALWAYS regret doing so, so why do it? It is simply not worth the loss of American lives when we have to clean up our mess later on. Once Iraq is stabilized, let's get the hell out of the middle east and Africa and let charitible organizations help try to piece together broken nations. We have our own problems to worry about.

Then you have picked the monster that supports your enemy. You lose.

Just so you understand what's really important. :D

No, not really. Rove is the Niedermeyer to Moore's Blutarsky. They do the same thing: attempt to shape public opinion. Their message , medium, and tone differ, but not their essential goal of getting their memes into the public consciousness. Beyond that it is a matter of degree, not kind.

Oh, and that Rove is actually evil.

It continues to amaze me that so many people in this world cloke their ignorance of history and politics with self-rightious indignance.

This is Rumsfelds Bio.
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html
Note position such as: Secretary of Defense, and Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984)

This is Cheneys Bio.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/...ios/cheney.htm
Secretary of Defense under the Bush Admin.

http://hnn.us/comments/9046.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
(go through this whole site, very interesting diplomacy information concerning the US and Iraq.
Yet we kept supporting them.

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/T...Imps_73-02.pdf
The US apparently traded with Iraq in formal arms sales from 1983-1988.
This shows the US as very low comparable to some others. What this chart doesn't say is what kind of weapons were introduced. For instance, alot of assault rifles and tanks and planes were sold by the Russians, French, and Chinese. Alot of training, and high grade things like Nuke designs and expensive and delicate cultures were sold by America.
_______________
Use of WMD's

Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm
Date
Area Used
Type of Agent
Approximate Casualties
Target Population

Aug 1983
Hajj Umran
Mustard
fewer than 100
Iranians/Kurds

Oct-Nov 1983
Panjwin
Mustard
3,000
Iranian/Kurds

Feb-Mar 1984
Majnoon Island
Mustard
2,500
Iranians

Mar 1984
al-Basrah
Tabun
50 to 100
Iranians

Mar 1985
Hawizah Marsh
Mustard/Tabun
3,000
Iranians

Feb 1986
al-Faw
Mustard/Tabun
8,000 to 10,000
Iranians

Dec 1986
Umm ar Rasas
Mustard
thousands
Iranians

Apr 1987
al-Basrah
Mustard/Tabun
5,000
Iranians

Oct 1987
Sumar/Mehran
Mustard/nerve agents
3,000
Iranians

Mar 1988
Halabjah
Mustard/nerve agents
hundreds
Iranians/Kurds

We knew they were using their wmd, especially Mustard gas to such a deadly degree. We documented it, yet we maintained diplomatic relations and even.....
...repeat...
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
Read ALL of that, it is also very good reading.

ESPECIALLY because in the article we list all the biological agents we sent to Iraq. It's invoices, not just speculations.

Including:
Anthrax, Botulism, Megaterium, Bacillus Subtilis, Brucella, Cholera, E Coli.
Bhania Virus, Dongua Virus, Hazara Virus, Kemeroud Virus, Langat Virus, Sandfly Fever, Sindbis Virus, Tahyna Virus, Thgoto Virus, West Nile Virus.
Also included were teaching supplies on how to handle, culture, support and contain these biological agents.

Thats a short list of the crap we gave them. There were also ballistic missile tech, nuclear tech support and some materials, (no nuclear material to my knowledge though) and chemical agents. I used to have a very good source of all this stuff but it has passe through my fingers in the past couple months. I'm sorry. But now that we have him alive I am sure I will be able to get that kind of information again in the next several months.

______________
Now, onto what we are doing NOW: Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

We are providing uzbek with lots of money, around 500 million a year I believe to do with as he pleases. And what pleases him are acid baths and burning people alive.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=36267

Equatorial Guinea is a pretty little country In which the president had his opponents imprisoned and tortured, had his presidential predecessor executed by firing squad, helped himself to the state treasury at will. State radio recently declared him ''like God.''
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=25785

Pretty ugly stuff.

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.

Reassess, yes, always reassessing. Still reading your anthology of information. Thanks for fulfilling my request.

The problem is deciding who is best at deciding what monsters cost more to support and what monsters cost more to ignore. Its not black and white, and it isn't very easy.

I saw this quote today when I was reading recent things about Bush. This is a little anger rant by me.

Utter, stinking, lies. Unless he stopped supporting the torturous regimes in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

God I want to punch a hole in the wall when I think of what a two faced -evil- person. Such a blatant hypocrite.

Unless as a President you stick to those ideals the best you can, and he didn't, you CANNOT claim them and try to pass it off to the american people as your values.

Do you hate FDR for the alliance with Stalin? Did you hate Clinton for enabling North Korea ablity to developing Nukes?

FDR did a wartime alliance with Stalin. We were both at war with the same man already, trying to keep the entirety of europe being overrun by Hitler.

That is completely differenty than allying with someone by giving them 500 million in aid a year.

So we were not at war this past year?:rolleyes:

Was Uzbekistan helping us get rid of Saddam?

Would we have been unable to do so without Uzbekistan's help?

Would Bush have cancelled his support of the regimes in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea if there had been no war?

That is the difference between FDR and Bush.

I see what you're saying superbelt. You can't make all these swell sounding endorsements of support for fundamental human rights while helping despots who regularly commit crimes against humanity.
That is one of the reasons that the humanitarian justification for the iraqi war doesn't hold water. You can pretend that america is all about the proliferation of democracy and the protection of human rights, but unless you tack the phrase "when it suits america's strategic and economic goals" on the end of those ideas your being deceptive by way of omission. America is a fair-weather friend to democracy and human rights.

Well said...

So you are saying that the solution to "American interference with national sovegerinty" is to invade MORE nations? How very unleft of you?

That is an excellent thing to say. I am going to pay a lot more attention to your posts henceforth.

Umm, somebody check Hannity's room for pods. Clinton did not "enable" North Korea to build nukes. Clinton, if he did anything, kept the North Korean nuclear program at a research level while he talked with them. Only after Bush gave the Kirk vs Klingons speech did they produce any nuclear weapons. That would be when they had a demonstrably hostile overwhelming force, given to preemptive action, but largely deterrable with nuclear weapons making threats.

Harry Truman screwed these guys after WWII and screwed them again in their own back yard. They are about 25 years behind the rest of the world ideologically and technologically, and have a justified xenophobia. One of Truman's successors starts making noises that might lead to fighting? They aren't going to get screwed twice the same way.

Now, that isn't to say that they're not screwing their own people, just that there are better ways to tell them not to do that than, "Knock it off or we're gonna clobber you again," as Bush seemed to be gettin to. Like how Clinton did it.

<b>Superbelt</b>, Great posts! Sorry for the digression.

Clinton TWICE told them to knock off nuke production, while giving them more money. Twice they ignored the terms of the deal and used that money not to feed their nation, but to build weapons. This was done in 94, and 98. Getting nukes and building plants didnt just happen with Bush. Nice revisonist history there.

You got us Endy, That should teach us for trying to convince people NK built a nuclear reactor AND created a nuclear bomb in under 3 years.

Lets get back to our revisionizing Liberals!

This is just another one of Moore's sad attemts to discredit Bush in any way possible

Yeah, but you guys would have screamed bloody murder if we decided to take on NK anyways. We've been using words for 11 years with Iraq about their WMD's and the left still bitched about not giving diplomacy a chance. Imagine what they'd do if we were in a situation where that was actually true.

It would be something if not the inability to find the actual weapons or not giving diplomacy a chance, there's never a shortage of something to bitch about in politics.

That said, Iraq was probably the path of least resistance. Both militarily and politically.

Anyone with half a brain would scream bloody murder if bush chose to take on north korea. Anyone who would label iraq a quagmire would have a field day with nk. Maybe nbc could revive M.A.S.H. for a whole new generation. Might make for some compelling tv.

There were plenty of righties who complained about bush's plans in iraq, including i believe the elder bush. You can pretend that it was only the left who complained, but then you couldn't accuse anybody of revisionism without being a hypocrite.

I agree that there is never a shortage of things for people to bitch about in politics, but you must realize that nitpicking is always a bipartisan affair. Don't try to claim that it is only a function of the left.

The invasion of iraq is only the path of least resistance if it turns out that iraq actually posed a threat to america. Hardly seems that way to me. Though i was under the impression that we(america) aren't in it for ourselves, we're in it to liberate the oppressed peoples of iraq. ;)

NK a quagmire? You think they would fair better then Iraq? The only problem now as then would be china, and even china can't stand up to us right now.

N. Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world.
I think they rival our own in ability. No way in hell does N Korea go down the way the pathetic army that was Iraq did.

They have a large unfed and ill-equiped army, like Iraq 11 years ago. We would crush them, and then question their sexuality as a nation.

Seems familiar.

I seem to remember a large modern army getting stuck in a quagmire fighting a large, unfed and ill-equiped army through the jungles in recent history.

And there are 1 million standing men and women in N Koreas army. And many more able to be conscripted at a moments notice.

We are strained just trying to send 120k troops to Iraq.