Destabilising "Rogue States"

Remove all ads!

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6491548%255E401,00.html

The US are more eager than ever to destabilise gvts they don't like. They did so on a routine basis in central america and south america. They did so on a routine basis in central and south asia.

After suggesting to support guerrillas in lebanon against syria the US hawks now, who would expect anything less, are now advocating to destabilise iran.
Because of the evil iranian gvt. Because iran *harbours* Al-Quaida terrorists - well, some are said to hide in a remote part of the country where the rebellious pashtuns don't accept the teheran gvt. However, recently the credibility of US "intel" has dropped considerably, promoting myths to the level of facts.
After all that means terrorists may be in iraq, but certainly not with iranian support. But this whiny focusing on details just obstructs the clear distinction of good and evil.

The poor iranians cannot get rid of their gvt the US despise so much themselves, so they shall receive US aid in that painful process. So it is the US burden to again bring peace and democracy (right after death and destruction; that's the immediate disadvantage of the US approach) to remote corners of the world.
The US helped the iranians in that way a few times already but that ungrateful bastards preferred to topple the dictator (named shah) provided by the US. The US officials who served under Reagan never forgot that. That's what you get for beeing cocky.

Destabilising gvt's by supporting guerrillas is an old practice of the US. Take nicaragua for example:
The silly nicaraguans were so bold to vote for a left gvt, preferring it over their old dictator. Commies in south america were too much for the US hawks to stomach and so they supported the contras.
One day the nicaraguans had enough and accused the US at the international court, accusing them to violatie international law by doing so. The US first agreed to the jurisdiction of the court, but withdrew immediately after it became clear that they would be sentenced and avoided that, well almost. The IC chose the second best option and published it's opinion on the nicaragua case:

As things tend to repeat (the US would violate the same rules as they did in the nicaragua case), maybe their opinions are worth a read:

http://www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/en/wcd/dec0102.cfm
http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html

[ May 28, 2003, 13:26: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The problem is that US courts apparently claim jurisdiction over the whole planet with no regard to any external factors at all while US themselves believe that their citizens cannot be adjudicated by any foreign court whatsoever. Which consequently displays that US assign more rights to itself than they recognise to reside with sovereign states and citizens thereof in general. Subsequently, they consider officially signed treaties and their binding power as subject to their own unilateral discretion. Thus US choose when to uphold and execute international law and when to criticise it on the grounds of infringement of US' sovereignty regardless of treaties and contracts.

Similarly US adhere to rather arbitrary criteria of justifying the use of force. In general the use of force is acceptable to achieve US' political or economical goals, but it's not acceptable for other sovereign states to resort to force in protecting their rights or supporting the claims not to even mention achieving political or economical goals. This way the Iraqis break international laws by showing American prisoners of war on the television, but US don't break any laws at all by televising the surrender of an Iraqi troop or Iraqi soldiers held captive. Final interpretation of good and evil apparently lies within exclusive and discretionary competence of the current president of the United States of America.

[ July 07, 2003, 11:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I've read in the newspaper today that the US administration is going to increase the TV and radio broadcasting which oppose the goverment of Cuba. Just another example of what Ragusa said.
Of course this is illegal and very low even for the US administration but i think we will see more of this

 

Why? No one criticized Radio Free Europe when it was broadcast behind the Iron Curtain...Castro has an oppressive regime, yet Castro himself is worth over $600 million! I guess it's just good to be the leader of a communist country...But not a peasant in one. There's a reason people risk their lives to row pallets 90 miles to get to Key West...

But ont thing I do agree on: The Bush administration is keeping the national eye on foreign affairs so his dismal domestic and economic policy will go unnoticed until after his re-election.

 

Broadcasting in a foreign country has been disputed in the cold war years for a while. Eventually it led to nothing, it's not illegal but, depending on content, it may be considered an unfriendly act.
The hawks in the pentagon wouldn't be hawks when they would be happy with something as virtual as anti-iranian propaganda on the air. I'm confident they have something more substantial, more violent in mind.

Nevertheless, I agree with you Bel - the current "perpetual war for perpetual peace" is a distraction, not only for poor domestic policy but also for the inability to get the original cause for the war on terror: Mr. Bin Laden.

For Bin Laden applies what Goebbels said about the Jews: "Gäbe es die Juden nicht, müßte man sie erfinden" (Wouldn't the jews be there, you'd have to invent them). With Bin Laden around and alive, there is a threat, and a justification for further wars on the geostrategic agenda - for the hawks that's global dominance, nothing less. That suggests a lack of emphasis to find and get him.

It would be conform with Strauss' theories that the leaders have to give the people an enemy to hate to keep them in line. It isn't democratic to lie to the people to justify a (maybe un-necessary) war.

The war in iraq, labeled a "liberation", masks that - as will the other "wars on terror" to follow. The overwhelming military success in iraq gave Bush Jr. a publicity boost. Hopefully his opponents will be able to focus on his domestic failures. And hopefully the US public will demand clarification on facts about iraq - and how and how much the Bush administration lied to them.

 

I agree with chevalier, with restrictions. Indeed, the US measure breaches of international law by only their own standards - the final judgement is theirs.
One might ask why? Because it's god's chosen country? Well, in the bible there was nothing about it when I last looked. This sense of mission and the self-perception of moral superiority is something odd to me.

So the US massively support israel, which is permanently violating some 20 or so UN security council resolutions - but because of iraq they go to war. This two-sided standard may cause the impression of hypochrisy.
The actual US gvt acts based on the perception of their own strength. As long as they can finance all the wars they feel they don't need international law, and will continue to ignore it and punish others for doing the same thing.

 

Now here's my conspiracy theory:

Bin Laden was not caught or his death confirmed for a reason...So that anything happening going forward can be blamed on Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Thus, legitimizing any action our government takes abroad.

As for Iran, they probably are harboring terrorists within their border. But the regime as a whole has been pretty stable since the hostage crisis of 1980. If we could work out a diplomatic solution (aid for cooperation or something), Iran could be a great place to begin a new relationship with the Mid-East.

I could care less about an Islamic State. We don't get all creased about a Jewish State, so why not one for Islam? As long as they don't try to export terrorism or blow buildings in my country...I'm fine with them.

 

I believe that we are seeing the facts with a very different prespective than the US administration don't forget that we are just numbers for them and their only goal is to achieve the total independence of USA from any other nation of the world.
They don't believe they are chosen from God they don't believe in God if you ask me they believe in absolute power and that is what they hunt.
They have accepted the gift that the former USSR has given them, leaving them as the only superpower in the world and they taking full advantage of this.
They know that noone can oppose them directly and therefore they don't care about anyone or anyones laws.
But history has a strange way to revenge and i believe that noone can escape.
The total disrespect of international laws will at some point turn back to them and i'm afraid that the only ones to feel it will be the simple people of USA who already feel a sentiment of hate and mistrust from the rest of the world.

 

Sir Belisarius,
well, conspiracy theory or not, it's not unlikely. Bob Woodwards book "Bush at war" is very interesting in this respect as he points out that in the discussions in the Bush administration right after 9/11 the hawks, Wolfowitz especially, pressed on military action against iraq while pentagon and ground zero were still smoking.
The idea of worldwide terror as a welcome excuse for war for geostrategical reasons isn't far out.

 

What's even more interesting there's some kind of 'good' terrorists. For example Jewish state is perfectly OK while an Islamic one isn't. Folke Bernadotte wasn't murdered by Muslim extremists hm...

Contras are another example. Not far from Nicaragua is Guatemala. United Fruit Company if someone doesn't remember - that wasn't even about US politics, it was totally economical. Slavery is OK if it's not slavery by name and if US companies profit from it.

Dictators now: Fidel. Guess who trained and paid him. Yes, you're correct, CIA. The same institution spawned Osama bin Laden himself, trained his followers, supplied them with weapons and cash. Speaking of Osama, some of the mighty hawks have more ties with him than Saddam Hussein has/had. The latter was also stuffed with curious weaponry by US when he went on war with Iran. Now he's a criminal for having them, you know.

It's all about power... Until 1964 black people in US had about the same chance to vote as those in the Republic of South Africa. Their day-to-day treatment was roughly similar. If there's any difference in US' favour, think about Indians (native American people). Guess which country was evil and which wasn't? British Empire was evil for the opression of poor coloured people by white men and in fact during WWII British soldiers where shocked to notice that in US Army there were separate toilets for black and white soldiers, heh... One could enumerate such examples till the morning, but that's not the point, especially that some of them are quite old. The point is that US are apparently not subject to the standards they claim to guard. What is good for US is Good and what is bad for US is Evil. Economical competition with US is Evil. Different political options are Evil (no, I'm not a commie). Most of all going one's own way after being US's pet is really Evil.

Last but not least, I wonder what would happen if UN endeavoured to send inspectors to have a closer look at US weapon industry. Not only the official one

 

You're exaggerating chevalier, but you aim right. However, a smaller gun would do just as fine.

US policy is a weird thing. US politicians complain about death penalty in china - because the chinese are evil commies, while they wouldn't waste a thought about human right compatibility of the US penal system.

The point is that we here focus to a good part on the black-white schematic the US gvt spotlights the world. They divide between "rogue states" and good states (like the US), they have a "coalition of the willing" which is good (and to some 60% bribed) and an evil coalition of the unwilling, they have the "axis of evil" which seemingly has only one counterpart, the "focus of goodness"

The problem IMO is that the media adopt these simplicistic patterns from the US administration, as well as the part of americans who get their info about events outside their country presented that way.
It's kinda scary to consider if Bush Jr. shares this simplicistic worldview. However, he uses it to justify military intervention worldwide. According to him it's a big fight against evil. Look at the US reaction on france's dissent. We are good and who's against us is evil.

For the christian right this is an truth they likely believe in, while for the majority of the US citizens this is probably seen as propaganda that can't be taken serious, however, amazingly, the effect is there: European businessmen travelling to the US report the americans they meet are angry about france and germany for their dissent.
There we are again: Yeah, who's not with us is against us. Didn't the president say so? Under the menace of terror and in times of war the people unite, that's intended effect of the current US efforts to form a public opinion.

 

We're getting a bit, but anyway: Here's a nice bit about the conservative media's opinionmaking in the US. That could indeed be an explanation on why black & white is implemented so often: Because it's easy, polarising and emotionally mobilising.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7928

and because it's an easy way to silence opposing views. Radicals always have easy prey in objective opponents as the latter, bound to facts, lack the ability to mobilize the emotions of the general audience.

 

BUSH IS TEH SUCK!

US IS TEH SUCK!