NationStates Jolt Archive


List of Illegal U.S. Interventions

Nikoko
17-01-2005, 03:49
I'm not anti-U.S. at all, I'm just in a rather odd mood at the moment and I feel like taking down the big guy a notch. Tommorow you can be sure I'll be defending American policies. :D

Why do they hate us? (http://http://www.peacepirate.com/argument/interventions.htm)

From linked article:

Below is an incomplete list of U.S. interventions into the internal affairs of, and U.S. incursions into, other sovereign states. Under both U.S. and International Law, these actions are illegal and furthermore are clearly acts of war. If you don't believe me on that point, then ask yourself what would have happened had the United States been on the receiving end of these actions. If you're willing to answer that question honestly, I challenge you to then ask yourself where the threats to our national security really originate from. (essay continued below)

The List:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran and installs the Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala at the behest of multinational United Fruit Company. 200,000 civilians are killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile to assassinate democratically-elected President Salvador Allende and install Dictator Augusto Pinochet. 5,000 Chileans are murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers in El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration covertly trains and funds "contras." 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House covertly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent and Panamanian President Manuel Noriega disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilians die.

1991: U.S. invades Iraq after Iraq invades Kuwait using American weaponry. Kuwaiti dictator is reinstated.

1998: President Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan which later turns out to be an aspirin factory.

1991-2003: U.S. military aircraft bomb Iraq on a weekly basis and almost unilaterally imposes economic sanctions. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and economic sanctions. Economic sanctions are illegal under the U.N. Charter to which the United States is a signatory state. Currently, the U.S. is still occupying Iraq.

2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."


There are other interventions that the author is currently researching.

(continued from above)
As the U.S. national security apparatus embarks on a dangerous policy of "pre-emptive strikes" in a drive to establish the "New American Century", it is significant to take notice of the prior interventions listed above. The history behind each one of these actions indicates that, contrary to U.S. governmental assertions, they were neither taken in the interest of freedom or democracy nor were they exceptions to U.S. foreign policy practice. All people, both Americans and the rest of the World, should be concerned because the "national security" rhetoric and actions of the United States are not those of a peaceful democracy, but rather another example in history of how a very privileged few are more than willing to sacrifice the common welfare and security of the People in the pursuit of ever more power. World history shows us that eventually empires fall and the People always pay the highest price. To these power-hungry interests, a nation-state is of no more significance than a corporate entity is to the business executive class - simply a legal fiction who's only purpose is to facilitate their personal gain.

Is America unique in history as an empire bent on world domination? No at all. The means employed by those in control of the U.S. national security apparatus may be more advanced than those used by previous warmongers, but the goal is still the same: subjugate the many to the service of the few. To that end, fear has always been a powerful tool of the oppressor to stop the public from thinking critically and asking questions about their government. In the United States, the domination of traditional pre-Internet media (television, radio, newsprint) by a handful of very wealthy, very powerful, anti-democratic interests has stifled the free flow of information to the People and has turned these sources of information into fear-mongering propaganda machines. By keeping the American public afraid, the warmongers are able to quell and attack those who challenge their policies by labeling challengers as un-patriotic and placing the country at greater risk.. All the while the warmongers manipulate the government into taking aggressive actions against other nations and reap the profits funded by taxpayer dollars. The recent $87.5 billion package that Congress approved in a roll call vote, and which the American media barely questioned and quickly forgot, is a glaring example of these forces at work.

But don't take my word for any of this. You've got Internet access. Look it up for yourself and form your own opinions.

I will continue to add more events to the above list (and there are more) as my research continues.

What's your take on this?

Note: Notice the "democratically-elected socalist President Jacobo Arbenz overthrown by the United States on the behest of United Fruit Company" and the "coup in Chile to assassinate democratically-elected President Salvador Allende and install Dictator Augusto Pinochet." If your going to defend America in a reply, begin with this! After all, we say we stand for democracy, how can we stand for democracy if we destroy it and install a dictator?

That said, I think America is the best damn nation in the world, I just think we can improve a few things. That's democracy in action, if I decide to flame a board once or twice, oh well. :D

Don't take things so seriously! Actually, now that I think about it, I think our nation is cleaning up past mistakes, removing all the dictators we helped to put in power.

P.S. I'm shipping off to basic training in four months, which is more then most of you Pro-Americans will ever do for your country, so PLEASE, I beg you, don't write me off.
Ratheia
17-01-2005, 03:50
-sigh-
Itud
17-01-2005, 04:02
You've got Internet access.

:eek: How do you know that. I'm gonna make sure i lock my doors tonight... :D

But seriously, interesting post. Its interesting to see what we (America) can get away with
Kanabia
17-01-2005, 04:05
-sigh-

Is that a "sigh, thats sad" or a "sigh, i hate people who criticize the US"?
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 04:12
Well, I wouldn't say we, as in our current generation, is getting away with anything. More like we are cleaning up our past mistakes, which unfortunetly, means lives lost. In the long run, I grudgingly admit, a free democratic Iraq is a better Iraq, as long as it isn't run by a U.S. puppet government.

I suddenly feel very pro-U.S., because in our own little way, we are admitting to our past mistakes. Not that most people view it that way, but I think I can FINALLY understand why Bush does what he does.

OMG I'm defending America in my blatant Anti-American thread. :/
Battlestar Christiania
17-01-2005, 04:19
I can't be bothered to respond to this nonsense in detail right now...but the bit about Panama is UTTER bullshit. Panamanian civilian casualties numbered just TWO HUNDRED, and OPERATION JUST CAUSE, which brought DEMOCRACY to the Republic of Panama, was PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Indeed, just prior to the execution of the operation, Panama declared WAR on the United States!
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 04:21
Okay, but how about some other events?

Such as the overthrow of the two democratically elected leaders?

The people have the right to choose, don't they? Don't we?
Bitchkitten
17-01-2005, 04:29
The U.S. is big and powerful. Big guys don't have to follow rules. Na na na na na na! We're bigger than you! The American government doesn't follow rules but they expect everyone else to. So obviously rules are meant for the little guys. But we're very noble and pure nonetheless. After all, Leona Helmsley said so, or something like that.
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 04:39
Well, Kitten, as much as I may or may not agree, posts like that one don't contribute much to the flow of conversation in a thread.
Bitchkitten
17-01-2005, 04:39
I can't be bothered to respond to this nonsense in detail right now...but the bit about Panama is UTTER bullshit. Panamanian civilian casualties numbered just TWO HUNDRED, and OPERATION JUST CAUSE, which brought DEMOCRACY to the Republic of Panama, was PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Indeed, just prior to the execution of the operation, Panama declared WAR on the United States!
Never mind that when we leased the canal area, we included a stipulation that if for some reason they became unable to militarily protect the region, we got to take it over again. Then we destoyed their military. We put Noriega in, but took him out again when he refused to cooperate with the CIA.
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 04:47
Now that is a MUCH BETTER post. :D
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 05:38
Oh come on, someone has to be able to defend America's actions, right?

Where are all the Pro-Americans?
Neo-Anarchists
17-01-2005, 05:40
Where are all the Pro-Americans?
They all just comitted suicide.
Alomogordo
17-01-2005, 05:41
Oh come on, someone has to be able to defend America's actions, right?

Where are all the Pro-Americans?
Me! Me! I'm still here!
HE HATE ME
17-01-2005, 05:43
egads
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 05:43
The CIA is nothing more or less than a terrorist organization. That is of course my opinion based upon their actions that we know of. I can agree to disagree, However that is my opinion.
Kwangistar
17-01-2005, 05:47
Who cares? International law is meaningless, as long as its not being enforced.
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 05:48
Who cares? International law is meaningless, as long as its not being enforced.

Fair enough, however then one should not throw stones who live in glass houses.
Celitine
17-01-2005, 05:52
the first gulf war was a war fough by most nations of the world under the UN
Kwangistar
17-01-2005, 05:54
And it's false that the US trained Osama, Osama himself has said so.
HE HATE ME
17-01-2005, 05:56
like uh it is true that america is teh devil osama himself said so
Red1stang
17-01-2005, 05:57
We can blow stuff up, you want a cookie now?
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 05:58
And it's false that the US trained Osama, Osama himself has said so.

While you're some what correct. The USA did in fact train the Mujahideen, which was backed by OBL and the United States knew it. OBL was considered "On our side" during the Afghan/USSR conflict. He was most certainly an ally at the time. I think it's rather a red herring.
Kwangistar
17-01-2005, 06:01
While you're some what correct. The USA did in fact train the Mujahideen, which was backed by OBL and the United States knew it. OBL was considered "On our side" during the Afghan/USSR conflict. He was most certainly an ally at the time. I think it's rather a red herring.
Well he didn't consider himself an ally.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/07/ixhome.html
: The CIA says there was a relationship with you during the Afghan-Soviet war.

OBL: [Answers previous question]

Q: Going back to the previous question of you and the CIA and American support for the war against the Soviets . . .

OBL: This is misinformation by the Americans. Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology.

Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them. So what they say happened between them and myself is out of the question.

It is only because the Americans were occupying the region that they threatened to use military force should the Soviets conduct such an intervention. So the Americans would be lying if they claim they had supported us. We challenge them to provide evidence supporting such claims.

They were a burden on us and on the mujahideen in Afghanistan, for we were performing our obligations in protecting Islam in Afghanistan even though this obligation of ours was at times serving, though without our consent, interests of America.

When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy.
HE HATE ME
17-01-2005, 06:02
Well he didn't consider himself an ally.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/07/ixhome.html
Pfft... that's just Osama rationalizing the fact he got a ton of free shit from us.
Celitine
17-01-2005, 06:02
america can get away with anything. but now it has to watch out for the E.U. which is becoming just like america.
Abundant Programmers
17-01-2005, 06:05
I can't think of a single CIA operative or administrator I've ever voted for (as an American). We often find out what they have done years afterward, having no knowledge of it during the process.

Where are the CIA's checks and balances? I want more.

-Abundant Programmers
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 06:10
Kwangistar : I believe as said you're looking for a red herring. We know full well that when the United States broke it's promise (at least implied promise) to Afghanistan after the conflict that the majority of the Mujahideen became Al Qaeda. This isn't exactly news to us. We have known about OBL and Al Qaeda for years.. The only person who tried to do any thing about it was Bill Clinton, but apparently the house Republicans tried to say it was simply a diversion from him getting a blow job. If you go back to the news of the time, it's not that hard to find. To say that we didn't know that OBL was involved in the Mujahideen, is either willful blindness or at worse, an outright lie.
Kwangistar
17-01-2005, 06:13
Kwangistar : I believe as said you're looking for a red herring. We know full well that when the United States broke it's promise (at least implied promise) to Afghanistan after the conflict that the majority of the Mujahideen became Al Qaeda. This isn't exactly news to us. We have known about OBL and Al Qaeda for years.. The only person who tried to do any thing about it was Bill Clinton, but apparently the house Republicans tried to say it was simply a diversion from him getting a blow job. If you go back to the news of the time, it's not that hard to find. To say that we didn't know that OBL was involved in the Mujahideen, is either willful blindness or at worse, an outright lie.
It isn't if OBL was involved withthe Mujhadeen. You're missing the point. The original poster said "U.S. trains Osama bin Laden..." Just because we trained some people who later became terrorists does not mean we trained all of those who did, including OBL.
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 06:17
It isn't if OBL was involved withthe Mujhadeen. You're missing the point. The original poster said "U.S. trains Osama bin Laden..." Just because we trained some people who later became terrorists does not mean we trained all of those who did, including OBL.

Fair enough, but you can't deny that we are not exactly innocent in all of this. We had every thing to do with why they hate us. I say lets wipe the mofo off the face of the earth, but lets not be naive as to why it happened in the first place. We used these people and then threw them away just as fast when they no longer severed a purpose for our strategic goals..etc.
New York and Jersey
17-01-2005, 06:17
Umm..what U.S. weaponry did Saddam use to attack Kuwait again?

I forgot the date General Dynamics Land Systems starting manufacturing T-62s, and I also seem to have forgotten the date when Lockheed(it was still Lockheed back then) made Mirage 5 and MiG-29s....someone care to enlighten me on that?

Overall that post was 50/50 BS to Accurate. Numbers were inflated, information was wrong..but it wasnt exactly unbiased from the get go so thats to be expected. My response to this as someone who normally defends, the U.S. Whatever.

As to the poster who asked about not having voted on C.I.A. actions..you're kidding me right?
Kwangistar
17-01-2005, 06:19
Fair enough, but you can't deny that we are not exactly innocent in all of this. We had every thing to do with why they hate us. I say lets wipe the mofo off the face of the earth, but lets not be naive as to why it happened in the first place. We used these people and then threw them away just as fast when they no longer severed a purpose for our strategic goals..etc.
I didn't say we were all innocent. I said that Osama didn't accept and wasn't trained by Americans.
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 06:20
I said that Osama didn't accept and wasn't trained by Americans.

I believe that is some thing we may never know to be honest and if we do, it won't come out till we are old and grey.
Naval Snipers
17-01-2005, 06:21
The CIA is nothing more or less than a terrorist organization. That is of course my opinion based upon their actions that we know of. I can agree to disagree, However that is my opinion.

CIA, just like MI5 and every other country's intelligence services help us in ways we dont even imagine, but people critize them because of what they see in movies. besides israel's intelligence community and has done far worse things then the CIA. even worse the KGB (now SVR or whatever they decided on this month.) if it werent for the worldwide intelligence community who knows what would have happened during the Cold War.
Hollystan
17-01-2005, 06:23
CIA, just like MI5 and every other country's intelligence services help us in ways we dont even imagine, but people critize them because of what they see in movies. besides israel's intelligence community and has done far worse things then the CIA. even worse the KGB (now SVR or whatever they decided on this month.) if it werent for the worldwide intelligence community who knows what would have happened during the Cold War.

I don't dispute this, I'm just saying when we talk about moral high ground.. it's a fallacy.
Naval Snipers
17-01-2005, 06:27
I don't dispute this, I'm just saying when we talk about moral high ground.. it's a fallacy.

yeah you're right about that. it's a messed up world we live in.
Andaluciae
17-01-2005, 06:28
I can't think of a single CIA operative or administrator I've ever voted for (as an American). We often find out what they have done years afterward, having no knowledge of it during the process.

Where are the CIA's checks and balances? I want more.

-Abundant Programmers
Ok, time for a basic civics lesson folks. The CIA is an office of the executive branch. It's funding comes from the Legislative Branch (hence, first form of oversight, if the CIA is really being bad, the Congress can squelch its cash.) The CIA, while part of the executive branch, also has its actions reviewable by the judiciary.

So, there's your checks and balances.
HE HATE ME
17-01-2005, 06:30
hey we're like the moral mt. everest and france is like the moral marianas trench
John Browning
17-01-2005, 15:15
Nikoko, I already did my time in the infantry.

It's not necessarily a sign that you're a "better" American. There are plenty of pacifists and people on the Left who make America what it is.

That aside, it's easy to find and make up lists of why other people and other countries hate us. Even if we didn't intervene, there would be people who would decry the fact that we didn't intervene or didn't help one side or the other. It's rather difficult to act in your own national interest and remain neutral. To most other nations and international actors, there is no such thing as neutrality in a practical sense (Stalin once noted that Finland, being where it was, could not choose to be neutral).

If you do end up in a combat arms unit, you may find that politics has little bearing on what you do and why you do it. Research indicates that the primary reason that men do, or fail to do, specific acts (positive acts such as standing their ground or negative acts such as running away or abusing prisoners), is small group dynamics - a human factor identified by extensive US research during WW II.

You'll do what you do because of the men around you, in the nearest group of 6 to 10 people. Not because of your orders, or because of the political situation, or because you fear punishment from on high.

There are some who will hate us anyway. But for those who end up shooting at you, they'll be doing it for the same reason you are. Because they don't want to let their friends down.
Nikoko
17-01-2005, 16:34
John, your reply justified the existence of this entire thread, thank you for your well written and thought out reply. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for defending our country.

On another note, however, what hasn't been addressed is how we can possibly justify the overthrow of two democracies following capitalist interests. I know the article is extremely biased, but biased tends to draw a more active response. In no way do I consider a peacepirate.org article completely factual. We all know, no matter how we try, humans get things wrong, we also promote our conclusions, not the facts when we author such documents.
John Browning
17-01-2005, 16:45
I surmise that the reason that the US invades is because of realpolitik. I know that's out of fashion, but I think that Kissinger was astute where national motivations are concerned.

Now, whether we know or can discern the actual motivations is another question.

As to whether or not something can be morally or legally justified, it could be said that no war can be justified on those grounds. In WW II, the Allies killed just as many German civilians as it did German soldiers. Millions. A side effect of the victory over Germany was the liberation of the remaining inmates of the concentration camps - millions of people. And possibly, the saving of millions of lives (Slavic in particular) who would have been enslaved and killed had Germany been victorious. But in the process, millions of civilians were killed.

To the modern leftist or modern pacifist, most of those civilians would have been considered innocents - unarmed innocents whose only crime was to be a resident of a police state.

I would submit that we wait for the passage of time before we lay down judgment on the morality or legality of a particular war. Time has a way of revealing more facts that allow a better picture to be drawn.