Unfortunately there may have never been a time when the US had a claim to the moral high ground. Operation Mongoose, which is well know for its attempts to assassinate Castro, turns out to pretty much be a rigorous terrorist operation against Cuba by the CIA.
I've been picking through some documents at http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/f rusX/index.html
I've been trying to verify claims I've read by Noam Chomsky. It looks like he's right, that the US is responsible for a wide range of terrorist operations in Cuba. The government documents describe them as sabotage. Targets include airliners, hotels, factories, livestock, and fuel tanks. It's depressing that there's documented proof from our own government of its terrorist actions. What's worse is nobody seems to care.
> Dennis the Mennace? The boy mayor who bankrupted Cleveland? Who gives a Monkey's ass what that fool thinks?
I guess I don't really care what he thinks. However, I give more than a Monkey's ass what he says when he knows the facts and has the balls or the conscience to say it.
>Would the fact that Croats had American air support during the operation make any difference? Clinton's hands are far from clean in any of the three conflicts there (Krajina, Bosnia, Serbia).
I don't think so. We're way offtopic and it does not even really matter, but I was looking for some sort of reason or argument for how attacking Yugoslavia several years later could be thought to hide any portion of America's shameful past. I'm not sure if you think I was implying that Clinton was a swell guy. If you were, I said nothing of the sort. He is simply not legally responsible for war crimes by any definition of war crimes I've encountered. I'm not an expert on international law, but I am a bit familiar with it.
Is the argument supposed to be that America was trying to bomb the knowledge out of Yugoslavia, or divert attention from Bosnia by playing the hero? I don't know what the argument is supposed to be. As it is, there seems to be no connection between Croats having air support in the operation and attacking Yugoslavia to years later to hide the fact.
How could attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 hide the "embarassing fact" that US forces facilitated warcrimes by Croatians? I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for warcrimes unless it can be demonstrated that troops guilty of committing the crimes were under his control. I would hope that the numerous other members of NATO wouldn't have gone to war to somehow aid the United States in covering up negligent behavior. What were the lingering effects of "Monicagate" that "President Penis" was trying to smother? Events preceding and following his impeachment did not significantly affect his approval rating. The bombing of Iraq seems to me to clearly be the "Wag the Dog" event; it diverted attention from daily proceedings that addressed Clinton's misbehaviors and sought impeachment. Those acts were concurrent. Attacking Yugoslavia followed afterwards, so I don't understand your claim. US presidents probably see wars as a good way to boost approval ratings. Clinton's did not have much room for improvement, but I'd concede that it could be the motivation for American involvement anyway. If Clinton can be held responsible for war crimes, they're certainly less hideous than any other US president in the last several decades.
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ 20/sprj.irq.kuwait.rockets/index.html
Apparently the US uses force far more often than you remember. The last one was Afghanistan, which we freed from a horrible government. That government threw out a more liberal government. Prior to that, in the 80's, the United States backed a different "incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime" All of a sudden we're supposed to be the knights in shining armor for simply undoing what we ourselves once did to the county.
The last military action the US took part in before Afghanistan was actually with NATO against Serbia in early 1999. Technically it was Yugoslavia at the time and we were trying to stop genocide in Kosovo.
And before that? Iraq. I believe Clinton dropped more ordinance on Iraq leading up to his impeachment in late 1998 than in all of Vietnam and the Gulf War. Or maybe that was Kosovo. They were so close together.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Bosnia was the previous one.
It's interesting how people completely forget that we've been dropping and shooting weapons in Iraq with relative frequency for almost a decade.
The protests in NY were not actually banned. The New York City government would only allow protests in small, barracaded areas, rather than permit a march down various routes that would make the protest visible. The excuse for denying a normal protest was that the government feared terrorists would take advantage of the peaceful demonstration by attacking or detonating bombs nearby. The area allotted to the protests in the end were not nearly large enough and spilled over into the streets, which I believe then resulted in various arrests. I'm uncertain about that last part. Anyway, concentraiting a huge number of people in a smaller area is a great way to thwart terrorists, right?
>Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah!:p
To put the role of oil in this conflict in perspective I think it's important to note the following quote by congressman Dennis Kucinich, which the Washington Post chose not to print:
"For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)"
Obviously the answer is oil. His full statement is available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately there may have never been a time when the US had a claim to the moral high ground. Operation Mongoose, which is well know for its attempts to assassinate Castro, turns out to pretty much be a rigorous terrorist operation against Cuba by the CIA.
f rusX /index.html
I've been picking through some documents at
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/
I've been trying to verify claims I've read by Noam Chomsky. It looks like he's right, that the US is responsible for a wide range of terrorist operations in Cuba. The government documents describe them as sabotage. Targets include airliners, hotels, factories, livestock, and fuel tanks. It's depressing that there's documented proof from our own government of its terrorist actions. What's worse is nobody seems to care.
> Dennis the Mennace? The boy mayor who bankrupted Cleveland? Who gives a Monkey's ass what that fool thinks?
I guess I don't really care what he thinks. However, I give more than a Monkey's ass what he says when he knows the facts and has the balls or the conscience to say it.
>Would the fact that Croats had American air support during the operation make any difference? Clinton's hands are far from clean in any of the three conflicts there (Krajina, Bosnia, Serbia).
I don't think so. We're way offtopic and it does not even really matter, but I was looking for some sort of reason or argument for how attacking Yugoslavia several years later could be thought to hide any portion of America's shameful past. I'm not sure if you think I was implying that Clinton was a swell guy. If you were, I said nothing of the sort. He is simply not legally responsible for war crimes by any definition of war crimes I've encountered. I'm not an expert on international law, but I am a bit familiar with it.
Is the argument supposed to be that America was trying to bomb the knowledge out of Yugoslavia, or divert attention from Bosnia by playing the hero?
I don't know what the argument is supposed to be. As it is, there seems to be no connection between Croats having air support in the operation and attacking Yugoslavia to years later to hide the fact.
How could attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 hide the "embarassing fact" that US forces facilitated warcrimes by Croatians?
I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for warcrimes unless it can be demonstrated that troops guilty of committing the crimes were under his control.
I would hope that the numerous other members of NATO wouldn't have gone to war to somehow aid the United States in covering up negligent behavior. What were the lingering effects of "Monicagate" that "President Penis" was trying to smother? Events preceding and following his impeachment did not significantly affect his approval rating. The bombing of Iraq seems to me to clearly be the "Wag the Dog" event; it diverted attention from daily proceedings that addressed Clinton's misbehaviors and sought impeachment. Those acts were concurrent. Attacking Yugoslavia followed afterwards, so I don't understand your claim. US presidents probably see wars as a good way to boost approval ratings. Clinton's did not have much room for improvement, but I'd concede that it could be the motivation for American involvement anyway.
If Clinton can be held responsible for war crimes, they're certainly less hideous than any other US president in the last several decades.
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."/ 20/sprj.irq .kuwait.rockets/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03
Apparently the US uses force far more often than you remember. The last one was Afghanistan, which we freed from a horrible government. That government threw out a more liberal government. Prior to that, in the 80's, the United States backed a different "incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime"
All of a sudden we're supposed to be the knights in shining armor for simply undoing what we ourselves once did to the county.
The last military action the US took part in before Afghanistan was actually with NATO against Serbia in early 1999. Technically it was Yugoslavia at the time and we were trying to stop genocide in Kosovo.
And before that? Iraq. I believe Clinton dropped more ordinance on Iraq leading up to his impeachment in late 1998 than in all of Vietnam and the Gulf War. Or maybe that was Kosovo. They were so close together.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Bosnia was the previous one.
It's interesting how people completely forget that we've been dropping and shooting weapons in Iraq with relative frequency for almost a decade.
The protests in NY were not actually banned. The New York City government would only allow protests in small, barracaded areas, rather than permit a march down various routes that would make the protest visible. The excuse for denying a normal protest was that the government feared terrorists would take advantage of the peaceful demonstration by attacking or detonating bombs nearby. The area allotted to the protests in the end were not nearly large enough and spilled over into the streets, which I believe then resulted in various arrests. I'm uncertain about that last part. Anyway, concentraiting a huge number of people in a smaller area is a great way to thwart terrorists, right?
>Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah! :p
To put the role of oil in this conflict in perspective I think it's important to note the following quote by congressman Dennis Kucinich, which the Washington Post chose not to print:
"For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)"
Obviously the answer is oil. His full statement is available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359