|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-05 22:25:53
Try this short quiz. First take a look at the countries we have bombed since WWII.
(compiled by historian William Blum:)
1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002
Just for fun, take a guess -
In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? I'll make it easy - multiple choice!
Choose one of the following:
(a) 0
(b) 0
(c) 0
(d) 0
This quiz compliments of:
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Ben Chitty USN 65-9 VN 66-7 68 NY/VVAW
Peace Center
P.O. Box 36
San Antonio, Texas 78291
Do you really think that just because Dubya made a speech the other night that bombing Iraq will yield a different result?
Democracy through "Shock and Awe" bombing - Some Middle East peace plan, eh?
Pacem in Terris,
One Citizen
-------------------
There's also an emerging story about the NSA eavesdropping on Security Council members. Read it here: http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.md.nsa04mar04,0,7914034.story
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-06 06:56:05
Your information is wrong, and i don't know where it comes from :
1) Afghanistan is now in a sense democratic, since the ruler was
elected by the council of elders (its not our definition of democracy but it is for them) - and the cause of this was the coalition against terrorism. There are several problems, since the Kabul government does not have any army to inforce its rule, but thats another story.
2) Yugoslavia is now separated into several entities which are democratic, so i don't really see what you are talking about - and the cause of this was the NATO intervention.
For the other countries you are talking about i don't have enough information to give a balanced opinion (but i think you are probably right in those cases)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-06 15:39:19
I believe you are trying to make a point on the success/failure record of the US in bringing democratic reforms and human rights to countries that it used force on.
To start off, I think it is debatable for anyone to categorically "credit" a country's democratic government or record of human rights "directly" to the actions of the US or any other nation.
Having stated this, I want mention that in addition to "codc01" comments, I also took a quick sample of several countries you listed and the following all now happen to be democratic republics. Is it possible that the list you obtained is somewhat slanted in opinion/judgement to begin with?
South Korea
Taiwan
Guatemala
Indonesia
Nicaragua
Panama
Peru
I would agree that you or others may not view these countries' human rights records as "satisfactory". But I should hasten to caution you to not simply base your judgement on your personal standards or indeed on the standards of any third-party country. There is the aspect of whether these countries did change for the better due to the action of the US. We may also wonder what might have happened to the peoples of these countries had the US or any other "would-be interfering" state never intervened.
I agree the issue of "regime change" justifies heated debate and while I know "regime change" is sometimes necessary, there are also many cases when it has failed. I think Saddam Hussein brought this crisis upon himself and his country. I also do not see an alternative to regime change in Iraq if it is to be effectively disarmed. If the US should topple Saddam Hussein then the world community must not only scrutinize the US but also rally to help ensure that regime change in Iraq results in meaningful improvements.
Vox Canadiana
BTW, you missed Somalia. The US left after they were attacked by Al Qaeda trained gunmen and I believe Somalia still has no government and is basically fought over by various factions of armed groups.
I also want to mention the cases of Sudan, Rwanda and East Timor.
There is credible evidence that Islamic fundamentalists in Sudan systematically massacred Sudanese Christians. The Al Qaeda has been linked to those fundamentalists. This is a method Islamic fundamentalists use to intimidate a population into creating a homogenous Islamic state. I have not checked on Nigeria but the pattern seems similar. It's a sort of "ethnic cleansing" and you can see it in parts of Indonesia and The Philippines. I mention this because the massacres of indigenous people is often what happens when other nations do nothing. Witness what happened in Rwanda when the US stayed out and no one, not even a Canadian-led UN presence did anything. Compare that to what happened in East Timor when the UN brought in Australian peace keepers.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-07 07:33:21
There are many countries overlooked in these lists where the US has had direct military influence. Most notably, Angola, where UNITA (US supported)rebels have commited horrible atrocities and acts of terrorism.
In 'The World Human Rights Guide' The nation of Liberia had, in the eighties, a military coup. The former government officials were liquidated.
The 'US supported this regime because of US interests in that country'
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-07 13:03:30
Well, I am unsure of the objectivity or accuracy of your claims but...
...by using the same twist of deductive logic you might also disregard any policy offered by France, Germany and Russia (and even Belgium) because Gaullist France has been an unrepentant colonialist and it committed atrocities in its various colonies, Germany because of its NAZI past/legacy and Russia for its past/present atrocities in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia....etc. and Belgium for numerous colonialist atrocities in Africa and Asia. It is an essentially endless and absurd exercise because none of the relevant parties are without "past sins".
My point is that you need to focus on the current issues and try to research the bases of the current allegations and rebuttals. Furiously dredging up fuzzy historical events with dubious accuracy and objectivity may satisfy some emotional grudge you bear but IMO it also creates useless distractions from the current real issues.
I believe that people who "live in the past" are some of the reasons why we have so much unresolvable strife in the world and IMO linking all of your arguments to convenient past events is a very non-constructive way to look at the real issues at hand.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-07 18:05:57
I agree that the focus must be on the present, and certainly on solutions, not blame. However, it has been said "those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".
Germany was de-nazified, mostly, after WWII. Britain and France (and many other european nations) have lost control (at least gov't-wise) of their colonies. The US, however, seeks 'economic imperialism' and expansion, and is prepared to use the sword as it's means of 'protecting it's interests'.
The world must face the notion, however absurd it may seem at this point in time, that the US might have to be confronted, and a 'regime change' forced upon them, if the rest of the world is to be truly 'free'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-08 12:23:54
"The world must face the notion, however absurd it may seem at this point in time, that
the US might have to be confronted, and a 'regime change' forced upon them, if the rest
of the world is to be truly 'free'. "
Well. Okaaay... and er, have a good day.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-09 21:42:05
Perhaps, the American people will have to make this regime change themselves. A regime change may be coming soon for his side kick Blair. 85% to 90% of the British people are against the war without the UN approval.
I would like to know what an independent poll of the American public feel about Mr Bush's stand. Completely anonymous of course as people are discouraged from speaking out for peace. CNN asked if they should be considered unpatriotic. Mr Bush said: you are either for us or against us.
No sane person could defend the bombing of the WTC but we do not need to agree with his actionsince. Too much, so called "collateral damage" If they are that inept; they should be armed with pea shooters.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-07 23:22:49
To clarify my stance against the US led invasion of Iraq I would say this.
Based on numerous recent historical examples I must conclude that this invasion is yet another violent, agressive action by the US to further enhance their wealth, and future access to that wealth, by use of force. The main issue here is how this action, and actions like it, will affect the future of all. There is a great opportunity for the world to 'wake up' and realize what is and is not important to the future of mankind. The focus of the US is not the future of mankind, however. It is on the next quarterly shareholders report.
I see the US as only concerned with subservience to Mammon, and as zealots, they feel 'justified' in any action that serves Mammon, even if they have to lie, murder, and pretend that they represent 'freedom' to do it.
Reply to this message
|
|
