Well, you seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that any form of government will consistently engage in behaviors it sees as in its own best interests.
A tired rationalization for an evil policy. I ain't buying it.
javafiend, do those references point out that the Cold War was the direct cause of almost all of the CIA activities?
Cold War rationalizations are examined in many of those works. Read
Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America by Walter LaFeber. Even before the Cold War, the US was executing an imperialist foreign policy in Central America, although using slightly different rhetoric. Even when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, we continued at it - using different rationales.
The CIA was often directed against countries that had *no* connection to the Soviet Union.
20 years ago John Stockwell told me that if the Soviet Union vanished from the map, the US would create quickly invent new enemies to rationalize its foreign policy. Thus he named his book
In Search of Enemies. I found it a strange thing to say at the time, but sure enough, the USSR vanished, and yet the same dynamics are at work in US foreign policy. Read his book (he didn't submit it to the CIA for prepublication censorship), and decide. Hell, John lives in Austin, Texas. Call him up and talk to him. If you are polite, he will undoubtedly talk to you. He saw combat in the Congo, Vietnam, and Angola, and has read more on the subject than anyone I know. Ask him about how he sued to write up propaganda for the State Department officials to read. They'd write up three different versions of of a press release, send them over the State Department public spokesman, and tell them "call us before you give you press conference, as the situation on the ground is changing rapidly, and we will tell you which version to go with." And you know what? All three versions would be complete lies. The State Department officials would hold rpess conferences, read CIA-prepared press releases, and the Washington press corps would copy down the statements, write their stories, and publish the "news" the next day. And it was all utter CIA BS. You see, the press corps tend to function as mere stenographers to power.
When a powerful nation is seriously threatened by a dangerous and avowed enemy,
How were we threatened by the revolution in, say, Angola? Not at all. There were three competing tribes jockeying for power - all of which had spouted quasi-Marxist rhetoric at one point or another, all of which had received aid from the Soviets or the Chinese at one point or another (as well as from half a dozen European countries). There was no threat to US national security. The US went into Angola looking for an enemy, and decided out of the blue that the MPLA would be the enemy.
From a strategic standpoint, we were beaucoup better off with a Shah or a Pinochet than a Mossadegh or an Allende. The CIA bought us badly needed time in critical areas.
Art, you've always debated me politely, so forgive me if I come off too strong and overbearing, but you are flat wrong here. I'm not going to sugar coat it for you. The fact is that neither Mossadegh nor Allende were threats to the security of the United States. Neither of them was aligned with the Soviet Union; neither of them had invited the Russians to establish bases inside their countries. Neither of them had carried out *any* acts of war against the US. The CIA didn't buy us "badly needed time." That's bunk. The CIA - operating 100% in accord with the orders of the president and NSC - toppled democratic governments who refused to kowtow to Washington, D.C.
Ever read histories of the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia? Filled with the same kind of BS Cold War rationalizations about the need to "defend" Hungary and Cz. from Western imperialist machinations yadda yadda yadda. Utter crap.
In both cases Iran in '53 and Chile in '73, the president of the US and his advisors decided in secret to wage illegal wars against constitutionally-elected government of countries just because they didn't like those governments, and offered rationalizations wrapped up in Cold War language of "defense of democracy." Defending democracy by overthrowing it? Protecting human rights by installing dictatorships that routinely violate human rights? Standing up for freedom by supporting police states?
Listen, we did the right thing in standing up to Moscow over Berlin. We drew a line at Checkpoint Charlie, we let the Russians know that we were dedicated to the defense of Western Europe, and we kept the peace in Europe. OK, all well and good. But then they wanted to use all that "defense of the West" language as an excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of little countries.
In Iran, we toppled an elected government and 26 years later we eventually ended up with a hostile theocracy that still governs the country.
In Chile, we snuffed out a proud tradition of constitutional rule, and replaced it with a dictatorship. Kornbluh cites a classified study of Chile by the Pentagon undertaken in 1970 to examine the impact on US national security of an electoral victory by Allende's Unidad Popular coalition in Chile. The impact? Zero. Wouldn't make a lick of difference. Read his book, decide for yourself.
Last night I was watching some travel show on PBS. At oen point the host was visiting some memorial to Mao Tse Tung, and talked with some Young Pioneers (young communists) engaged in some kind of loyalty-to-the-state ceremony. He started talking to a few, and one of them asked him his opinion of Mao. I immediately imagined myself there, biting my tongue. Do I answer honestly - that Mao was a criminal responsible for the deaths of millions - and risk offending my guests or worse? Or do I just shrug? Or do I just say something like, "I hear that Mao was a great leader" and leave it at that? It occured to me that if I were to speak the unvarnished
truth - that Mao was a mass murderer - that probably that crowd of Young Pioneers would accuse me of "hating China" just as American nationalists here do whenever I discuss unpleasant truths about the real history of the fedgov's foreign policy. For me, this isn't just an academic question. I am planning a trip to the Far East, and will visit China and Vietnam along the way.
If people want to honestly and intelligently discuss these issues, then we can have an elevated examination of these issues.
If they just want to throw mud at me, question my patriotism, resort to ad hominem, and make up one lie after another, then I will shoot them down.
What does any of this have to do with Legal and Political on a gun forum? It fits in because it's all about the legitimate uses of violence. Besides, the average High Roader, I think, is more educated than the average person, thus the discussion is bound to be more interesting.
Sometimes I can't tell who is being ridiculous on purpose around here.
