Re: Requests for Proposals

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: Requests for Proposals


On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:39:15 -0500, Dan Minette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Request for Proposals

> > Panama is better, the family of a former dictator still runs the
> > country but they hold elections.
> >
> > I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships under Bush 1
> > and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported
> > creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam.
>
> Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its coincidence
that
> there are far fewer military dictatorships in Latin America now than
before
> the Cold War ended?  Right now, Haiti is the one I can think ofwhich
is
> what you cover below...which I can get to.

>We are talking about  Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.  I see no indication
>that the Bush's were interested in overturning dictatorships except
>for Panama and Iraq.  The rise of democratic governments worldwide has
>been seen as a consequence of fewer conflicts, the rise of the
>information age, the increasing scrutiny of bank accounts, and the
>refusal of other countries to offer safe havens.

>Why do you think increasing American military power has anything to do
>with the decline of Latin American dictatorships?

Because of the obvious correlations.  The US has little leverage over Arab
countries, due to the West's dependence on oil.  The only representative
government in the region is Israel, with whom the US has had a lot of
influence.

The US has minimal influence in Africa.  Thus, while there have been some
democracies, there have also been ruthless dictatorships. In Asia, the US's
influence has been strongest in Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan.  These all
have fairly advanced representative governments.   It has no influence in
China, which is a dictatorship.

The US had tremendous influence in the rebuilding of Western Europe.  It
had mostly representative governmentsSpain was the only real exception
for a while.

After the Iron Curtain fell, the US was strongly involved in East Europe.
Its military intervention in the Balkans was clearly the most striking
example, but it was not the only one.

So, if one does a scatter plot of relative US influence and type of
government, you would have seen a correlation even during the cold war. It
became markedly stronger after the end of the cold war.  The leverage the
US had after the end of the cold war was markedly stronger too.  Groups who
wanted to take over the country could no longer count on the Soviet Union
to fund and equip them.  The US was the only superpower game in town.
Thus, right wing military dictatorships did not have the "if you don't
support us the country will fall to the Communists" card.





> I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see the
> justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul made the same
> claim,  and I responded as follows:
>
> "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the
> Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."
>
> I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could enlighten me on
> this,
>
>Always glad to help.

I read your arguments, as well as looked at web sites Andrew provided.
Only one, UPI, looked as though it had any track record to go on.  It seems
that the data suggested that the US did have some dealing with Hussein
early on. But, that is far different from the US being the one who put him
where he is.

The Cold War was a very unusual kind of war in that it was fought with
restraint on both sides, because neither side felt it could afford an all
out war.  The US's strategy was to contain the Soviet Union until it fell
from its own internal weaknesses.  The strategy of the Soviet Union was to
continue to expand its sphere of influence until the US was virtually
isolated.

Both fought this war by trying to influence and aid groups that they
thought might be friendly to them and have some chance of gaining power.
It is a tremendously murky affair, with limited influence on both sides.
Parties could take money from one side, and then decide the other was more
to its liking and switch sides.

Once groups actually started running governments, alliances became clearer.
The countries that got weapons from the Soviet Union were aligned with
them; those that got them from the US were aligned with the US.  So in the
Middle East; the Bath Party was clearl

RE: Requests for Proposals

[Andrew Paul]

From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


>>> "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the
>>> US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."
>>> I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could
>>> enlighten me on this,
>

>>I haven't had time to read all this thread, just noticed this one at random.
>>I don't recall making that claim, if I did, and didn't answer your question,
>>it would be because I would have no idea what I was talking about :)


>You made the claim in a post on 4/6/04, which I received at 11:51, in the
>following exchange:

>
>Dan:
>>I believe that the Catholic confession for "what we have done and what we
>>have failed to do" is a very valid encapsulation for morality.  We are
>>responsible for evil we could have stopped, as well as the evil we do
>>ourselves.  True, raping someone and standing by while another is raped
>are
>>not equally evil, but both are evil.

>Andrew:
>So we did the latter for 30 years, after putting the rapist in power, and
>now we decided its our turn.
>And that makes us Princes of Morality? So you die in a paper shreder or in
>from a tank shot.
>Dead you are.

>

>By "the rapist", I think you meant Hussein, since that's what the metaphor
>referred to.  Your mentioned 30 years, reinforced that idea.

>Dan M.

Ohh, OK, yes I did say that, sorry, it was just the way you phrased it, made it
sound like I made authoritative statements about the origin or the Baath party
and Saddam. I was being a bit pop-culture there, and overly dramatic, as the use
of the word rapist may suggest. A bit sloppy and emotive on my part I concede.
I was under the impression that the CIA had had a hand in installing Saddam, but
the details of it, as I said, were something I was ignorant of. It was a sort of
"commen knowledge" type statement I was making, not one that I could claim
to be truly informed about. I guess Saddam is probably one of the few people who
could be taken as a reliable source on this topic. I await his book with interest :)

I have found a few links that refer to some of the concepts I was referring to, and 
hope they flesh out where I was coming from. I apologize for not getting back to you 
on this, to be honest time forced me to skip a lot of posts.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features98/saddam.htm

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

Now, these are just websites, and it could all be bunkum, but they help set the tone 
of where I was coming from. According to these, Saddam was on the CIA's payroll from 
1959, and was groomed to assassinate the then Iraqi Prime Minister, and that the CIA 
adopted the Baath party as its tool of choice in getting the regime it wanted. Some of 
the sources quoted, former US government officials, sound like they would know.

That being so, I was wrong in saying 30 years,  I should have said 40. But then who 
really knows... The CIA sure aint crowing about it.

Andrew

 

 

 



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 
 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Requests for Proposals

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:09 AM
Subject: RE: Requests for Proposals




> "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the
> US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."
>
> I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could
> enlighten me on this,
>

>I haven't had time to read all this thread, just noticed this one at
random.
>I don't recall making that claim, if I did, and didn't answer your
question,
it would be because I would have no idea what I was talking about :)



You made the claim in a post on 4/6/04, which I received at 11:51, in the
following exchange:


Dan:
>I believe that the Catholic confession for "what we have done and what we
>have failed to do" is a very valid encapsulation for morality.  We are
>responsible for evil we could have stopped, as well as the evil we do
>ourselves.  True, raping someone and standing by while another is raped
are
>not equally evil, but both are evil.

Andrew:
So we did the latter for 30 years, after putting the rapist in power, and
now we decided its our turn.
And that makes us Princes of Morality? So you die in a paper shreder or in
from a tank shot.
Dead you are.



By "the rapist", I think you meant Hussein, since that's what the metaphor
referred to.  Your mentioned 30 years, reinforced that idea.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Requests for Proposals

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:39:15 -0500, Dan Minette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Request for Proposals

> > Panama is better, the family of a former dictator still runs the
> > country but they hold elections.
> >
> > I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships under Bush 1
> > and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported
> > creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam.
> 
> Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its coincidence that
> there are far fewer military dictatorships in Latin America now than before
> the Cold War ended?  Right now, Haiti is the one I can think ofwhich is
> what you cover below...which I can get to.

We are talking about  Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.  I see no indication
that the Bush's were interested in overturning dictatorships except
for Panama and Iraq.  The rise of democratic governments worldwide has
been seen as a consequence of fewer conflicts, the rise of the
information age, the increasing scrutiny of bank accounts, and the
refusal of other countries to offer safe havens.

Why do you think increasing American military power has anything to do
with the decline of Latin American dictatorships?

> I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see the
> justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul made the same
> claim,  and I responded as follows:
> 
> "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the
> Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."
> 
> I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could enlighten me on
> this,
> 
Always glad to help.

Saddam made a name for himself in 1959, when he led a six-man team to
assassinate Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem. Kassem had come to power the year
before, leading a coup against the puppet rulers of Iraq put in place
by the British colonialists. The murder plot failed, and Saddam fled
to Egypt, where he reportedly made contact with the CIA and helped
Washington's attempts to get involved in Iraq.

Kassem's 1958 coup put an end to a British-backed dictatorship. At
first, the U.S. government supported Kassem until he started buying
arms from the USSR -- and threatening to invade the small oil kingdom
of Kuwait, sound familiar?.

The U.S. aligned itself with Kassem's opponents, including the Baath
Party.  The CIA set up a command center in Kuwait to direct the
opposition. In 1963, the conspirators toppled Kassem--who was
machine-gunned to death and his bullet-riddled body displayed on Iraqi
television.

"Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National
Security Council aide, wrote to President John F. Kennedy.

Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the
CIA, the Baathists massacred an estimated 5,000 people--jailing and
torturing thousands more. Five years later, the U.S. reportedly backed
yet another coup that brought Gen. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr to
power--along with al-Bakr's right-hand man, Saddam Hussein.

> > Bush 2 has even brought back all the old 'cold warriors' that Bush 1
> > ignored and has put heavy pressure, including removing one, against
> > the Americas governments not supportive enough of GOP positions.
> 
> >From what I read, Aristide was corrupt, lost popular support at home, and
> the US refused to use its military to support him.
> 
> > The Organization of American States is not happy with Bush 2:
> 
> That's fair enough.  I'm not happy with Bush 2, but that doesn't undo my
> claim.
> 
> > (AP) - Despite objections from the United States and Haiti, the
> > Organization of American States opened the way for an investigation
> > into the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
> >
> > The OAS General Assembly also called for elections in Haiti as soon as
> > possible. But the debate over a probe into the coup went for hours
> > until the body on Tuesday night finally approved a resolution calling
> > Aristide's ouster unconstitutional and allowing an assessment of what
> > occurred.
> 
> Which seems quite reasonable.  I'm not arguing that the US was flawless in
> this; but I can sympathize with the unwillingness to use US troops to stop
> the rebels.
> 
> > Aristide accuses the United States of forcing him from office - a
> > charge Washington denies. A U.S.-supplied jet flew Aristide to the
> > Central African Republic on Feb. 29 as [- US armed] rebels advanced on
> > the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, and he is now in asylum in
> > South Africa after spending several weeks in Jamaica.
> 
> Is there any evidence that the US actually supported the coup instead of
> simply refusing to use its troops to fight it?  With all due respect,
> unsubstantiated claims by Aristide is not really evidence.
> 
> Dan M.

Common knowledge is that Aristide's opponents were financed, armed and
supported 

RE: Requests for Proposals

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> >
> > I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships 
> under Bush 1 
> > and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported 
> > creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam.
> 
> Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its 
> coincidence that there are far fewer military dictatorships 
> in Latin America now than before the Cold War ended?  Right 
> now, Haiti is the one I can think ofwhich is what you 
> cover below...which I can get to.
> 
> I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see 
> the justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul 
> made the same claim,  and I responded as follows:
> 
> "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the 
> US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."
> 
> I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could 
> enlighten me on this,
> 

I haven't had time to read all this thread, just noticed this one at random.
I don't recall making that claim, if I did, and didn't answer your question,
it would be because I would have no idea what I was talking about :)
I have no idea who started the Bathe party, or why, I think someone else
might have said that, but well, thanks for thinking of me :)

Andrew
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Requests for Proposals

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Request for Proposals


> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:10:09 -0500, Dan Minette
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >>Other than
> > > giving some people twitchy fingers and delusions of grandeur what
does
> > > having no enemy in the world being one tenth as strong as us done?
> >
> > It has allowed us to be a lot firmer with right wing dictatorships that
are
> > in our sphere of influence.  If you look at the Latin American
governments
> > during and after the Cold War, you will see a remarkable shift in the
type
> > of governments.  Right wing dictatorships lost the leverage of "do you
want
> > Communists instead of us?"
> >
> > The one military intervention in Latin America during this time ended
up
> > very successful.  There is now a representative government in Panama;
> > superior to both Noriaga  for both the US and the people of Panama.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
> Panama is better, the family of a former dictator still runs the
> country but they hold elections.
>
> I haven't noticed any changes toward right dictatorships under Bush 1
> and Bush 2 except for turning against the former US supported
> creations that went too far - Noriega and Saddam.

Why don't the data convince you? Are you arguing that its coincidence that
there are far fewer military dictatorships in Latin America now than before
the Cold War ended?  Right now, Haiti is the one I can think ofwhich is
what you cover below...which I can get to.

I won't argue with your claim about Noriaga, but I don't see the
justification for your claim about Hussein. Andrew Paul made the same
claim,  and I responded as follows:

"I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the US set up the
Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it."

I didn't see an answer from him on this.  If you could enlighten me on
this,

> Bush 2 has even brought back all the old 'cold warriors' that Bush 1
> ignored and has put heavy pressure, including removing one, against
> the Americas governments not supportive enough of GOP positions.

>From what I read, Aristide was corrupt, lost popular support at home, and
the US refused to use its military to support him.

> The Organization of American States is not happy with Bush 2:

That's fair enough.  I'm not happy with Bush 2, but that doesn't undo my
claim.

> (AP) - Despite objections from the United States and Haiti, the
> Organization of American States opened the way for an investigation
> into the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
>
> The OAS General Assembly also called for elections in Haiti as soon as
> possible. But the debate over a probe into the coup went for hours
> until the body on Tuesday night finally approved a resolution calling
> Aristide's ouster unconstitutional and allowing an assessment of what
> occurred.

Which seems quite reasonable.  I'm not arguing that the US was flawless in
this; but I can sympathize with the unwillingness to use US troops to stop
the rebels.

> Aristide accuses the United States of forcing him from office - a
> charge Washington denies. A U.S.-supplied jet flew Aristide to the
> Central African Republic on Feb. 29 as [- US armed] rebels advanced on
> the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, and he is now in asylum in
> South Africa after spending several weeks in Jamaica.

Is there any evidence that the US actually supported the coup instead of
simply refusing to use its troops to fight it?  With all due respect,
unsubstantiated claims by Aristide is not really evidence.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l