Dramnek, I know where you're coming from and where you want to go. You make very good points but you seem to forget the reality of international politics: it's based on the protection of the nations interests. Not morality (though it probably should).

I really wish I could find my thesis and have it translated for you (it was in French but it's packed somewhere in my basement). It's a 135 pages describing the foundation of international relations. I took the presidency of Jimmy Carter to study the concept of morality vs interest. Morality was the approach he undertook at the begining of his term. By the end of the term, US foreing policy changed in focus. It was now geared toward the protection of the national interest. You see, even if a nation would like to base it's policies on morality, it cannot do so because it would hurt it in the long run (more than what we have witnessed on 9-11).

I'll look around to see if I can find my Bibliography. It will provide you with a few good reading titles to help you better understand the "why".

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-23-2001).]

To a certain extent a moral apporoach is unattainable simply due to past events and actions I would say. A purely morals based forign policy would require I Belive co-operation of many nations and peoples and a large amount of trust. Co-operation and trust that is unlikey to ever be got or given due.

That's right. Though morality is desirable, it's also unattainable because of trust issues and human lust. But, stating that you do things because you just wish to protect your own self-interest is rather selfish, which quite frankly is a trait that nobody wishes to have. So, to help ease things, we go in with the attitude that what we are doing is morally right even though it usually isn't. Don't kid yourself, not just the USA are guilty of this, we all are. There not one country in the world who bases it's relations on morality... not even the Vatican.

Plus, how well do you think it sounds to the local population if you go around saying that you don't really give a damn about the poor little Kuwaities, that you just care about their oil. However, if you tell them that you're going in to help remove the evil dominator, that sounds much better and you'll get much more support for your actions. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

The opposite is also true, sometimes, it's the local population that dictates the implications of the government. The war in Yougoslavia is a good exemple of this. People get so outraged about what's going on that they demand action for their goverment even if they actually end up screwing thing up even more. Then, the government is still acting on the best interest principle, not that of the country, but that of the party because they want to stay in power.

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential :)

You work with what you have.

Supporting the new friendly leader of a country, whose powers may be just as dictatorial as the previous leader, is a case of choosing "the lesser of two evils". We can't install democratic governments and enforce them across the globe, nor do we have the desire to force democracy on anyone.

We believe democracy (I realize we're actually more of a republic but you know what I mean) is the best way, but people have to choose for themselves. We frequently help those who want democracy, knowing that governments responsible to their civilian population are better for the world community, and for US.

During the Cold War, we were much more willing to accept a nations "claim" to want a more democratic government, because we wanted to defeat the spread of Communism. Some of those attitudes have to be reworked. We need a better screening process for our friends, but that's going to make people mad, too.

Even with that said, what countries haven't gained and lost the same allies over and over throughout history. All of the European countries have, at one time or another, been friends and enemies, and on more than one occassion family! The US helped open Japan to foreign trade in the 1800's, bringing them into the modern era. Fify or so years later they were our most hated enemy, but afterwards friendships were rebuilt. The US and the Soviet Union were allies, then became the most dangerous enemies the world has ever known, and now we're allies, again.

Removing rogue/illegal governments is something the world community has consistantly stood behind and claims to stand behind in the case of Afghanistan(remember, only 3 countries recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government). We don't want another state. We're not trying to expand our borders. We haven't fought for land to claim as American soil since WWII. We are simply trying to protect ourself the best we can.

Nations make wrong choices, but the problem is usually with individuals, both those who choose and those chosen, not national intent. Most citizens across the world don't want to rule the world; they want to live their lives in peace.

Our leaders try to allow us to do that, if they fail, they can be replaced without bombs or gunfire. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the world could say the same thing?

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/rb.gif http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave1.gif

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-23-2001).]

China 1945-46,1950-53
Are you sure the USA Bombed in 1945-46 or did they sell arms Chang Ki Sheik's (sp?)side? The side that now makes up Taiwan, is not Taiwan a democratic nation? Chang Ki Sheik asked the USA to get involved in open combat and was turned down!
1950-53 China suported and supplied North Korea during a war (see below)
Korea 1950-53
North Korea invaded South Korea one of the USA's allies, killing ROK soldiers and US Army personal stationed there to defend South Korea
Guatamala 1954,1967-69
I'm not familar with those dates please give some facts other than just dates. I'm willing to bet that the USA bombed only during a revolution in an unstable country that threatened it's (USA's) citzens, or the USA sold arms to one side or the other in a civil war and DIDN'T actually bomb.
Indonesia 1958
See above
cuba 1959-60
Sorry the USA has not bombed Cuba tha USA did train Cubain Exiles to retake their country, but the very reason the "Bay of Pigs" failed was because the USA DID NOT BOMB! JFK refused too!
belgian congo 1964
You will have to provide more facts on this one, I believe you will find that the USA gov't. did not do anything, privite US citzens joined as mercenaires. Privite citzens doing something is not the same as the gov't doing it.
peru 1965
More facts than just a date, but I'm willing to bet it was another revolution and the USA sold one side arms not the same thing as bombing!
laos 1964-73
You bet'chum, the North Vietnamese were using Laos as a staging area to fight their war in South Vietnam. See below
vietnam 1961-73
North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam another of the USA's allies and we got into a shooting war, a war run from the halls of the White House instead of from the field.
cambodia 1969-70
See Laos
grenada 1983
Violence eruped and USA citzens were threatened and not ones to look a "gift horse in the mouth" we saw a oppurtunity to kick the Cubains out.
libya 1986
Retaliation for a terrorist act!
el salvador 1980's
The USA sold arms to help the El Salvador gov't fight against insurgences. The USA did not bomb!
nicuragua 1980's
The USA sold arms to insurgences fighting against a Communist gov't.
panama 1989
The USA attacked after Noregia refused to step down after he had lost an election!
iraq 1991-99
Iraq invaded Kuwait then would not abide by the sanctions placed on it by the U.N. and the Coalition.
bosnia 1995
The USA bombed Serbian forces attacking Bosnia and preforming genoicide!
suda 1998
Retaliation for a terrorist attack!
yugoslavia 1999
Same as with Bosnia
Yes I would say they were all justified. Helping allies defend themselves against foriegn invasion or insurgences You bet'chum! Retaliantion for terrorist attacks You bet'chum! Stopping Genoicide You bet'chum Red Rider!




------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

Your response reflects my concern that this "evidence" of the non-peaceful nature of the US was only a meaningless list of countries and years.

People have misconceptions about the US based on things they've heard/mis-heard and have been willing to take these, as fact, without any proof. Opinion is one thing, but listing facts requires more precision. This has been a problem throughout the world and on this board in particular.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/rb.gif http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave1.gif

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-24-2001).]

proof of the Usa's aid in the supresion of democracy?... (this refers to the overthrowing of the democratically elected allende goverment in chile with the aid of Henry Kissinger)

• The Allende government had democratic legitimacy and ruled over a functioning democracy.

Allende ratified by parliament

Chile was a presidential democracy. Allende was elected President with a plurality of the vote, 36.2%, an established constitutional procedure. The outgoing President Frei resisted moves to block Allende’s investiture : it was ratified by a majority of the Chilean parliament. Allende signed a Statute of Guarantees in which he promised to uphold the Constitution and the legal system. There is evidence that he made extensive efforts to uphold it throughout the period, against increasing obstacles.

Subsequent free elections strengthened government support

In the 1971 municipal elections, the governing Popular Unity coalition won 51% of the vote. In the parliamentary elections of March 1973, it increased its electoral support to 40% of Senateseats and 43% of Congress seats, against an opposition block of parties with 55%. Chile’s presidential system (cf. the USA) did not require a minority government to seek wider support. But the lack of a majority meant that many government-sponsored bills were blocked by the opposition, and some non-government bills were passed because Allende did not use his veto.

Armed forces’ acceptance of the government

The Chilean armed forces, in line with its duty to obey civilian governments, had a strong constitutional tradition, but a minority of officers (whom Pinochet later joined) struggled repeatedly to subvert it. At the time of Allende’s victory, extreme right-wing conspirators around Gen. Viaux made a bungled attempt to kidnap the head of the army, the constitutionalist Gen. Schneider, killing him instead. But the armed forces backed Allende. High ranking army generals joined Allende’s cabinet from November 1972 until March 1973 and again from 10 August 1973 until the coup. Pinochet duped Allende into believing he too was a loyalist.

• Evidence that the right-wing parties accepted the subversion of democracy and the overthrow of an elected government when it ceased to work in their favour.

This is the indictment of the leading US authority on Chile, Georgetown University professor Arturo Valenzuela.

It was the establishment elites who became determined to use force when constitutional procedure failed to remove the government. The US Senate Committee charged with investigating US involvement in Chile, chaired by Senator Frank Church, reported in 1974-5 that a secret group assembled by Henry Kissinger had financially supported many Chilean opposition organizations to sustain lengthy actions aimed at destabilizing the government.

• Allende government was not involved in terrorism (creating a climate of fear to destabilize the government); right-wing opposition groups were.

The US Senate Church Committee report concluded that the far right-wing party Patria y Libertad received finance to destabilize the country through bomb attacks and actions described as ‘terrorist’. Le Monde reported 500 right-wing attacks were committed in the 2-week period of late August-early September 1973, while the government parties appealed for calm.

• Legal basis for Allende Reform programme.

Takeovers by workers could be carried out under a Chilean law allowing ‘requisition’ of factories to force continuity of production, there where owners had been found to be reducing production and de-investing to create shortages of goods. The Land Reform law passed by Christian Democrats was the framework for agricultural labourers to occupy land if it was uncultivated or underused.

Allende’s intention was a specifically Chilean, constitutional road to ‘socialism’, even though some workers and peasants, who had little stake in a democracy that had served them poorly, pushed the boundaries of action beyond what the government intended. While the government’s reform programme was lawful, there were violations of the spirit of the law. The left’s abuses were sporadic and undirected and on a minor scale compared to those of the right, who repeatedly violated specific statutes while calling for ‘law and order’ in general.

• Government did not allow civilians to hold arms.

Armed forces’ power to search for arms.

The army was given the legal power to search freely for arms after parliament passed a bill in Oct. 1972. Searches in factories and among government supporters found very few. He called a state of emergency in May 1973, revoked all civilian gun permits and banned unauthorised public meetings. After the failed coup attempt of 29 June 1973, supporters called on the government to open the armouries to them, so that they could come to the government's defence, but Allende refused.

So when Pinochet made the coup, there was little armed resistance, because Allende had not encouraged it. Allegations of Cuban advisors and trained militia and a ‘Plan Z’ were proved false and were dropped by Pinochet quite early, without any evidence.

1973 : STEPS IN THE OVERTHROW OF A DEMOCRACY

• Economic disruption perpetrated by rightist trade unions

April 1973 : Right-wing trade unions launched strikes with intent to drain the Treasury of income.

Copper mines were Chile’s main source of wealth and foreign exchange income. In 1971 they were nationalised by a majority of Parliament with Christian Democrat support, as a major national asset.

Despite this on 19 April 1973, a 74-day miners’ strike (financed by the CIA) was orchestrated by the right-wing parties. It lost the state $70-100 million dollars in forgone revenue. The Christian Democrat-dominated miner’s union claimed a 41% pay increase, but the Miners’ Conciliation Board ruled (in favour of the government) that the miners were not entitled to it. Disregarding this, the Christian Democrat and National Party called for the strike. In early May, the government achieved a settlement and the majority of workers went back to work, but a hard core stayed out on strike. On 14 June they started a long march from the north to Santiago, supported by food and transport from landowners and rightist parties. Still Allende negotiated with the strikers, who gave up on 29 June ‘73 after the failed military coup.

• Army high command remained loyal to the President and constitutional order until just before the coup; opposition parties did not.

29 June 1973 : Failed military coup.

The attempt by the Second Armoured Regiment to stage a coup failed because most of the army did not join it. The rebellion was put down by the joint chiefs of staff killing 22 insurgents. Immediately after the failed 29 June coup, the 5 leaders of the extreme-right Fatherland and Freedom party (allowed to operate in Allende’s liberal democracy) sought political asylum in a foreign embassy as they had been part of the plotters. The chairman of the National Party, Mr Onofre Jarpa, himself went to the airport to see them off into exile. The Christian Democrat Party’s chairman did not condemn the coup attempt.

• Provocation and planned sabotage carried out by anti-Allende groups.

July 1973 : lorry-owners’ strike.

A political strike was launched on 26 July 1973 by the lorry-owners, with rightist parties’ support and CIA finance. The head of one lorry-owners’ organization who stayed loyal to the government, was assassinated. Lorries blocked all main arterial roads disrupting nation-wide food distribution, and sabotaged the lorries themselves by removing vital parts.

The government accepted 13 of their 14 demands yet they stayed on strike.

• No evidence whatsoever that Allende government ordered or condoned the practise of torture.

July-August 1973: Major case of torture by the Navy,

No torture allegations were made against the Allende government at the time. Nor is there evidence that it authorised or covered up the practise of torture by the police or any branch of the armed forces. On the contrary, the Navy was publicly accused of torturing a group of about 100 arrested sailors and workers, in order to make them confess that they had ‘conspired’ to stay loyal (sic) to the government in the event of an unconstitutional military move. (The loyalist group had formed as a response to their Navy colleagues’ conspiring to bring about such a military coup, but these were not arrested.)

On 5 September 1973 all government parties issued a statement denouncing such torture.

The Navy headed by Admiral Merino, played a major part in 11 September coup, which started with the naval uprising in Valparaiso.

‘The silent majority’ supported peaceful outcome to crisis.

September 1973 : Despite anti-government protest activity on the part of groups such as professionals and housewives from residential suburbs, national surveys taken in the weeks before the coup indicated substantial majority support for democracy and a peaceful outcome to the political crisis. Only 27% of those polled even thought the military should be ‘involved in the political process’ in someway .

• Army intervention did not uphold constitutional procedures

September 11th, 1973 : The armed forces could have limited their action to removing the government and calling new elections, which the right-wing parties could have won. Equally, the armed forces could have restored law and order, since resistance to the coup was minimal after the first few days. The military coup need not have led to dictatorship, it was Pinochet’s decision to remain in power.

• Bloodshed, torture and arbitrary imprisonment were wholly unnecessary for the coup’s success.

After the coup: Rather than maintaining law and order, the Junta disrupted all democratic institutions and practices, and for years after the coup, persecuted countless individuals and parties suspected of sympathy with the previous government. Pinochet’s Junta threw out Constitutional procedures and suspended human rights guarantees such as habeas corpus, and killed thousands in revenge for past actions which had been lawful at the time they were carried out. Yet Allende’s unarmed supporters posed no threat whatsoever.

• Unnecessary dictatorship, pointless loss of life.

Even from the point of view of the coup’s supporters, once the Allende government had been brought down, Pinochet’s subsequent dictatorship was unnecessary as well as unjustified. Yet instead of calling elections, in June 1974 Pinochet declared himself President of the Republic and Supreme Chief of the Nation, personal ambition outstripping all other considerations.

WOW! I hope you didn't do all that research for me http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif

This is very informative, and I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue for Pinochet's rule. After the fact, it seems like it should have been so obvious, but it isn't always.

America did what it thought to be in it's best interest at the time. I'm know this wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last that America ends up choosing the wrong side. I don't believe it is a "conscious" policy that we withhold democracy from anyone, neither do I believe that America is for democracy at home and dictatorships abroad. We work within the parameters of any given situation.

In general, dealing with countries whose governments are responsible to their populations is more productive for US than countries who are run by the will of the few. It doesn't always work out that way, and when it doesn't we get "burned".


Great information on your post! I've had history teachers who were less thorough http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/hihi.gif

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/rb.gif http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave1.gif

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

That's what it all comes down to... IMO anyway http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif. Now, apply this to every country in the world and you'll get a good understanding of how international politics work http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-24-2001).]