americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
yes we will. and we have. and we do.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
Perhaps they would have had we not supported coups in Syria ('49), Iran ('53), Iraq ('63, never came to fruition), and Afghanistan (from '69-79).
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
Sorry, if you've never been to the Middle East then you can't make a statement like this. I've been there numerous times and they coexisted until we stuck our nose there.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
Sorry, if you've never been to the Middle East then you can't make a statement like this. I've been there numerous times and they coexisted until we stuck our nose there.
So the entire problem in the middle east is the United states fault? They have been fighting for 1500 years and America is to blame. Sorry, I won't buy that. And no, I don't have to visit the middle east to comment on it. I've never been to Miami either, does that mean I can't comment on the dolphins?
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
Sorry, if you've never been to the Middle East then you can't make a statement like this. I've been there numerous times and they coexisted until we stuck our nose there.
So the entire problem in the middle east is the United states fault? They have been fighting for 1500 years and America is to blame. Sorry, I won't buy that. And no, I don't have to visit the middle east to comment on it. I've never been to Miami either, does that mean I can't comment on the dolphins?
It is now yes. Show me a place in the entire Middle East that has a conflict going on and were "not" some how involved. Name me 1 conflict.
Christian Armies in Middle East will never make things better.
The argument that we are there to help the folks in Middle East is silly considering those that support war want to kill the Evildoers which I feel = Muslims.
We pussy foot around and work so hard to justify our positions yet history gives us the answers.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Maybe for someone who cant comprehend facts as you.
it is called "living in a bubble", nart.
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
I know it has happened. But to say it happens all the time and everywhere is believing every conspiracy theory you read. The United states is not the root problem in the middle east. Is the US a source of suffering? Sure. But from my view, the people of the middle east should learn coexist. It seems like they have never grasped that concept.
Sorry, if you've never been to the Middle East then you can't make a statement like this. I've been there numerous times and they coexisted until we stuck our nose there.
So the entire problem in the middle east is the United states fault? They have been fighting for 1500 years and America is to blame. Sorry, I won't buy that. And no, I don't have to visit the middle east to comment on it. I've never been to Miami either, does that mean I can't comment on the dolphins?
I agree, we didn't start but we also are not the solution. Also agree one can offer opinions without being there But should realize sometimes information gotten from second parties can be tainted.
Peeling away the news perspective can be done. I use empathy and put myself in shoes of Iraqi citizen then see a Christian tank rolling down my street.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
That's a lot of shit stirring. Wow, that's some list.
Romeo Dallaire believed that the west- rich with its advantages- had a moral responsibility to assist people in need. He was referring to the brutal non-response to the Rwandan genocide.
I tended to agree with him. If people are being slaughtered and we have the means to assist... it's cold and indifferent to stand idle.
Have you ever looked into the counter-opinions on the Rwandan 'genocide'? Questions regarding the politicization of 'genocide'; whether the bulk of the victims were Hutu or Tutsi, the role of the US in support of the RPF prior to the crisis, the reasoning behind the withdrawal (and denial of reinforcement) of UN troops, have been called 'conspiracy theory' and likened to 'holocaust denial' by Mr.Dallaire. This kind of rhetoric, as a form of silencing discourse without addressing the claims, make the official narrative (which many consider Dallaire to be a 'gatekeeper' of), worth a second look. Since you have read Dallaire's account of these events, I'd be curious to read your reaction to the opposing claims made in regards to Rwanda: The Politics of Genocide (2010), by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, and a BBC documentary called Rwanda, The Untold Story (2014).
I haven't seen the doc, nor read the book, but from what I'm reading, the article I will post below seem to support the same positions.
Too long to paste, so I'll include a few highlights that claim that the US was not only a supporter of much of the killing that took place, but also the main factor in repressing any UN effort to stop it. It also claims that the same parties involved have been those responsible for the atrocities seen in Congo since, and that a lot of this is indeed a result of imperial resource wars. It also targets Dallaire with some harsh accusations: http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-was-behind-the-1994-rwanda-genocide/5406344
Who was Behind the 1994 Rwanda Genocide?
The triggering event in the ‘Rwandan genocide’ of 1994 is generally agreed to be the shooting down, on April 6, 1994, of the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president of Rwanda, and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi. The official story has it that unidentified ‘Hutu rebels’ were the villains who targeted their own countrymen in some vague attempt to gain power. No evidence was ever adduced in support of this threadbare thesis, but in any case, even if so, the official villains failed spectacularly in their objectives as the country quickly fell to invading Tutsi forces leaving a small minority (Tutsi) population to rise like the Phoenix to its former position of national privilege and oligarchical control. No one in the Western mainstream media has ever commented on the exceeding peculiarity of this bizarre turn of events, never witnessed before, in which the supposed victims of a genocide end up as the victors of the conflict.
The paradox is soon resolved, however, if we countenance the much more likely scenario that the decapitation of the state leadership was the first stage in a final offensive of a war started four years earlier. That the assassination was part of an RPF coup d’etat is given further support by the fact that a 30,000 man RPF force was already marching against Kigali hours before the plane was destroyed, and that RPF forces inside Kigali were attacking government positions within hours of the shootdown. The Western audience, naturally, was, and has never since, been informed of these rather pertinent contextual facts surrounding the events of April 6, 1994. To boot, the official response to Habyarimana’s assassination was and has remained one of determined indifference; a strange thing given that it involved the highest official in the land. Even stranger given that, and according to virtually every independent expert on the subject, the ‘genocide of 1994’ simply would not have happened had Habyarimana not been assassinated. Nevertheless, though all the circumstantial evidence points towards the assassination being part and parcel of a US-backed RPF coup d’etat against the government of Rwanda, it would yet be helpful if there was direct evidence implicating RPF forces in the murder. There is.
As in one of those classic ‘B movie’ plot twists where the bad guys inadvertently hire a good guy who turns the table on his benefactors, so too did the lead official of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) hire an investigator into the crash who turned out to be an honest man. Reporting back to Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour in 1996/97, Australian lawyer, Michael Hourigan, found evidence directly linking the RPF (and the CIA) to the assassination. Far from pleasing Arbour, however, Hourigan’s diligence was rewarded with censure. According to Hourigan, Arbour became “aggressive” and “hostile” when informed of his findings. What Hourigan didn’t know at the time is that Arbour, after having launched the investigation, had been directed by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who had handpicked her for the job) to quash the inquiry. And so she did. Arbour would later (again under the aegis of Albright) be promoted to Canadian Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Hourigan’s report, though suppressed at the time, would, nevertheless, surface many years later in the hands of one of the defense teams at the ICTR. The report would also have its findings later corroborated by numerous sources. Thus, the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, having been called in to investigate the deaths of three French nationals who were aboard Habyarimana’s doomed flight, launched an exhaustive eight-year investigation. He concluded that the plane had indeed been destroyed by the RPF and that the assassination was part and parcel of Kagame et al’s plan to take over Rwanda by force. Bruguiere went on to issue nine warrants for the arrest of high-ranking members of the RPF whilst also requesting that the ICTR take up Kagame’s prosecution.
the more independently-minded Carla Del Ponte replaced the pliable Louise Arbour, she was quickly terminated as Chief Prosecutor after calling for a ‘Special Investigation’ into the actions of the RPF; this despite making a case for such an investigation with then UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan. Of course, Anan’s refusal to look into the crimes of the RPF should come as no surprise as it was he who, a) was head of the peacekeeping operations in 1994, and is thus implicated in the events, and b) was handpicked by the US to replace his predecessor, Boutros-Ghali.[...]
Boutros-Ghali, It might be remembered, had come uncomfortably close to scuttling the entire US/RPF invasion scenario when, in May of 1994, he acceded to a request by the Rwandan government to send 5500 UN troops to Rwanda to reinforce the 2500 already stationed there; this so as to stabilize the country at a time when reports of growing ‘chaos’ were issuing forth daily in the world press. These efforts were, however, categorically thwarted by the Clinton regime which used its influence to remove the proposal from the UN agenda. Instead, the UN troops already stationed there, far from being reinforced, were withdrawn. Later, Boutros-Ghali, in conversation with Rwandan expert Robin Philpot, would expand on these matters declaring that, “The genocide in Rwanda was 100% the responsibility of the Americans!” Hardly any wonder, then, that in 1996 US Ambassador to the UN, the ubiquitous Madeleine Albright, would veto his re-election making Boutros-Ghali the only UN Secretary General in history not to be granted a second term in office.[...]
It is ironic in the extreme that Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda – a film unashamedly promoting the official narrative – has himself, in numerous interviews, completely gainsaid that narrative. He has, thus, repeatedly denounced the RPF as the real genocidaires, and has called a Kagame a “war criminal” and “dictator” who is responsible for mass killings not only during the takeover of Rwanda in July 1994, but ever since both in Rwanda and in his US-backed incursions into the Congo. Indeed, so fervent have the denunciations been that Rusesabagina is now officially listed as a ‘terrorist’ and ‘genocide denier’ (a prisonable offence in Rwanda) by the Kagame regime. [...]
continued (most of this relates to the claims against Dallaire) :
As Canadians we are more than ordinarily complicit as it was the Canadian government (under Jean Chretien) that worked hand-in-glove with the Americans throughout this period. In particular, of course, three Canadians, Louise Arbour, General Maurice Baril and General Romeo Dallaire played leading roles in the ‘affair’. For services rendered they were, all three, handsomely rewarded: Arbour, as already mentioned, with promotion as Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Baril with promotion to Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces (in Sept. 1997), and Dallaire with appointment as Canadian Senator for life. Of the three, however, Dallaire’s role is particularly noteworthy, for it is he who has, ever since, been portrayed, and portrayed himself, as a hero in the Rwandan tragedy; and who has, as such, been pre-eminently involved in spreading and maintaining the Big Lie with respect to it. Dallaire’s 2003 epic, Shake Hands With the Devil, an ironically named Faustian tract, fails spectacularly to elucidate the author’s otherwise well documented actions during the events. It is well established, for instance, that Dallaire knew of – and, effectively, facilitated – the build-up of RPF forces inside Kigali prior to Habyarimana’s assassination. It is well established that Dallaire, rather than reporting to and receiving orders from the UN, as was his mandate, was, instead, reporting and receiving instructions from American military commanders. It is also a fact that Dallaire, only two months prior to the assassination of Habyarimana, closed down one of the only two runways into Kigali airport – upon request of the RPF. It is also the case that Dallaire covered up the massacre by the RPF of MRND people elected in by-elections in the north of Rwanda in November, 1993. Evidence presented at the ICTR further implicates Dallaire in supplying intelligence to Kagame and the RPF forces throughout the period leading up to April 6, 1994. Whenever Dallaire has faced formal questioning regarding his actions in Rwanda his testimony has been strictly managed and censored. Attempts by independent journalists and investigators to interview and question him have met with refusal and/or silence. And those questions are many and serious. Apart from the items already listed, they include: How did the lady prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, come to be murdered at the UN development compound (the morning after Habyarimana had been assassinated) just a short time after he, Dallaire, arrived there? Why did he do nothing to save the lives of the Belgian UN soldiers – suspected of being the team that shot down Habyarimana’s plane – who were subsequently killed at Camp Kigali? Why, and under whose command, did Belgian army units in certain strategic positions in Kigali abandon them and all their weapons to the RPF? Why did UN army units attack FAR army units, but never the RPF? Why did he fail to report that US forces, using Hercules C-130 aircraft, were supplying men and weapons to the RPF? Why, when Dallaire had his headquarters at Amahoro stadium in Kigali after April 6 through the rest of the month, did he allow RPF forces to enter and subsequently murder Hutu refugees who had fled there for safety? And, of course, why did he lie about the ‘genocide fax’ of January 11, 1994? Still, all in all, Dallaire was merely a bit player in a much larger drama, a drama written and produced in Washington, D.C.
I haven't spent much time looking into Rwanda. I have no idea how valid either side of this discussion's claims are. But that's kind of the point I'm trying to make in posting this: Unless we feel 100% comfortable in what we're supporting, it is a slippery slope, even in regards to UN peacekeeping missions, to support military intervention on foreign soil....there are two sides to every story. How do we know we are choosing the 'right' side of these conflicts? In general: by what we see in the media....which we know serves the interests of it's owners over the people 99/100. Because of this, we can so easily be duped into supporting interests that have nothing to do with our personal intentions of altruism. As the article states - Rwanda is often held up as an example of failed humanitarian intervention (and thus as justification for humanitarian intervention in other conflicts, as you thirty, have done in this thread)....when in fact, it just might have been a prime example of why humanitarian intervention may not be as it seems. Depressing....not sure where that leaves us in regards to preventing wholesale slaughter.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
Brian,If we want to help those here at home we are going to need to do it not just with Govt but with the benevolence of the private sector.Not just charities and orginazations but Also wealthy individuals and buisness charities(think Ronald McDonald House,Bill Gates charities,etc). It is crucial that we protect our interests from a financial perspective,in order to continue the work we need to do at home. We can't say Fuck it and let other economies and Markets take big hits and losses hits without feeling it's butterfly effect here.Even the ones some think are evil(oil,resources) must be kept stable to not offset our markets here.
I know it dosent fit into the utopian vision of peace love and help ,but you can't have the utopia and help the helpless without it.As strong as we are as a union we have an obligation to reach beyond our borders to also help.
For example ,Yes we have drought here,but should we not try to also bring clean water to remote areas of Africa?Or should we not respond to Enviormental or Natural issues because we have them also at home.
And yes the big bad military machine is also needed worldwide to keep transport ,rail and air and shipping lanes free and clear of pirates and those who want to stop the free flow of commerce goods and services.Its our job to help police the worlds idiots who want to do no good stuff with Nuclear items not just weapons but waste.
We have good allies all over who maybe couldn't stand up to bigger,stronger regimes.We can't let them be bullied.It will hurt us domestically in the long run. And we cannot just sit by while non state actors continue to try to force there perversions onto innocent people.Letting them take over countries and gain power is not the right thing to do.Regardless of who gave them power to begin with.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
This is a list without context. For example Yugoslavia who started the genocide? You are going to blame the US for that?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
You forgot South Vietnam, 1963 assassination of President Ngo Diem and Haiti, 1971 with the installation of Baby Doc Duvalier. Not to mention the US' close involvement with numerous dictators in the Philippines, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
This is a list without context. For example Yugoslavia who started the genocide? You are going to blame the US for that?
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
every corner....
The symbol on the map with Russia is the NATO symbol. So we might as well add Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia to the list of shit stirrers .
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
every corner....
The symbol on the map with Russia is the NATO symbol. So we might as well add Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia to the list of shit stirrers .
Who says they weren't a part of it? But let's not bullshit anyone and believe the U.S. wasn't behind these cuops or regime changes.
Drowned Out, you are a major force on these boards, kudos to you for your scholarly contributions.
Yes indeed
Thanks guys. IT's mostly google, to be honest. I can't remember all the shit I post, but there is always a counter-opinion to be heard....and most often, we don't hear it, or it is framed as a partisan issue instead of an overall, non-partisan policy issue.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
You forgot South Vietnam, 1963 assassination of President Ngo Diem and Haiti, 1971 with the installation of Baby Doc Duvalier. Not to mention the US' close involvement with numerous dictators in the Philippines, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc.
I think Canada is more implicated in Haiti (working from memory cause I'm in a rush)...I'm not sure what Blum used as criteria for judging this....I mean, the article I posted above would indicate that Rwanda should be on the list as well.....but it's his list.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
every corner....
The symbol on the map with Russia is the NATO symbol. So we might as well add Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia to the list of shit stirrers .
I have no problem with that, and I very rarely blame the US solely for these problems. There are def occasions that they work exclusive of their allies, but for the most part, the foreign policy of the US is favourable to everyone working under the anglo-US-NATO economic umbrella. The pics I posted obviously have a degree of hyperbole to them - it's a meme for chrissake. Not meant as evidence in a debate.
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
We will?
Of course not. It's just absolute nonsense.
Does anyone have a count on how many democratically elected governments we have ousted? Drowned Out probably does. There's been a few throughout the years...more than a few probably.
I haven't exactly investigated US actions in every instance listed below...but I think William Blum qualifies as one of the preeminent critics of US imperialism:
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 * Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
This is a list without context. For example Yugoslavia who started the genocide? You are going to blame the US for that?
americans are responsible for the pain in suffering and poverty and death in their own country. how about we start fixing that first.
I'm not opposed to seeing what's happening in our own backyard and working on fixing some of what is broken(as long as we aren't just throwing more wasteful entitlements around).but you still can't ignore our interests around the globe.Unfortunatly they all tie together.
But rr, what are our interests around the globe? International cooperation, mutual exchange of cultures and working for the common good? Or control, power, and appropriation of resources? And which of those is ultimately better for everyone?
exactly my thoughts. what are our interests around the world?
so far our interests are to have a military footprint in every corner of the world to make sure the developing countries don't get all upity and try to throw us out. we will take their land, take their resources, keep their people poor, insure that friendly parties are in power, and just maintain status quo. that is the american interest. america uber alles.
every corner....
The symbol on the map with Russia is the NATO symbol. So we might as well add Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia to the list of shit stirrers .
Who says they weren't a part of it? But let's not bullshit anyone and believe the U.S. wasn't behind these cuops or regime changes.
But the US didn't act alone in numerous of these crimes, Dirtie Frank has a point, most of western societies had benefits in these kind of actions... But hey, if the US will take the lead, they will get the blame... Most European countries have a burden of guild from the colonial days, and are scared the rest of the world will play that card if they will take the lead in controlling the rest of the world, but they are happy to join in when, US asks them....
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
either that poster is very young, or very naive. or very brainwashed by right wing radio and tv. either way, i am not going to hold it against them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
As for the Dolphins, ya they suck.
The argument that we are there to help the folks in Middle East is silly considering those that support war want to kill the Evildoers which I feel = Muslims.
We pussy foot around and work so hard to justify our positions yet history gives us the answers.
Peeling away the news perspective can be done. I use empathy and put myself in shoes of Iraqi citizen then see a Christian tank rolling down my street.
Done after that. We need to get out and stay out.
Drop some medicine/ food maybe?
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
I haven't seen the doc, nor read the book, but from what I'm reading, the article I will post below seem to support the same positions.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-was-behind-the-1994-rwanda-genocide/5406344
Who was Behind the 1994 Rwanda Genocide?
The triggering event in the ‘Rwandan genocide’ of 1994 is generally agreed to be the shooting down, on April 6, 1994, of the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president of Rwanda, and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi. The official story has it that unidentified ‘Hutu rebels’ were the villains who targeted their own countrymen in some vague attempt to gain power. No evidence was ever adduced in support of this threadbare thesis, but in any case, even if so, the official villains failed spectacularly in their objectives as the country quickly fell to invading Tutsi forces leaving a small minority (Tutsi) population to rise like the Phoenix to its former position of national privilege and oligarchical control. No one in the Western mainstream media has ever commented on the exceeding peculiarity of this bizarre turn of events, never witnessed before, in which the supposed victims of a genocide end up as the victors of the conflict.
The paradox is soon resolved, however, if we countenance the much more likely scenario that the decapitation of the state leadership was the first stage in a final offensive of a war started four years earlier. That the assassination was part of an RPF coup d’etat is given further support by the fact that a 30,000 man RPF force was already marching against Kigali hours before the plane was destroyed, and that RPF forces inside Kigali were attacking government positions within hours of the shootdown. The Western audience, naturally, was, and has never since, been informed of these rather pertinent contextual facts surrounding the events of April 6, 1994. To boot, the official response to Habyarimana’s assassination was and has remained one of determined indifference; a strange thing given that it involved the highest official in the land. Even stranger given that, and according to virtually every independent expert on the subject, the ‘genocide of 1994’ simply would not have happened had Habyarimana not been assassinated. Nevertheless, though all the circumstantial evidence points towards the assassination being part and parcel of a US-backed RPF coup d’etat against the government of Rwanda, it would yet be helpful if there was direct evidence implicating RPF forces in the murder. There is.
As in one of those classic ‘B movie’ plot twists where the bad guys inadvertently hire a good guy who turns the table on his benefactors, so too did the lead official of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) hire an investigator into the crash who turned out to be an honest man. Reporting back to Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour in 1996/97, Australian lawyer, Michael Hourigan, found evidence directly linking the RPF (and the CIA) to the assassination. Far from pleasing Arbour, however, Hourigan’s diligence was rewarded with censure. According to Hourigan, Arbour became “aggressive” and “hostile” when informed of his findings. What Hourigan didn’t know at the time is that Arbour, after having launched the investigation, had been directed by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who had handpicked her for the job) to quash the inquiry. And so she did. Arbour would later (again under the aegis of Albright) be promoted to Canadian Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Hourigan’s report, though suppressed at the time, would, nevertheless, surface many years later in the hands of one of the defense teams at the ICTR. The report would also have its findings later corroborated by numerous sources. Thus, the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, having been called in to investigate the deaths of three French nationals who were aboard Habyarimana’s doomed flight, launched an exhaustive eight-year investigation. He concluded that the plane had indeed been destroyed by the RPF and that the assassination was part and parcel of Kagame et al’s plan to take over Rwanda by force. Bruguiere went on to issue nine warrants for the arrest of high-ranking members of the RPF whilst also requesting that the ICTR take up Kagame’s prosecution.
the more independently-minded Carla Del Ponte replaced the pliable Louise Arbour, she was quickly terminated as Chief Prosecutor after calling for a ‘Special Investigation’ into the actions of the RPF; this despite making a case for such an investigation with then UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan. Of course, Anan’s refusal to look into the crimes of the RPF should come as no surprise as it was he who, a) was head of the peacekeeping operations in 1994, and is thus implicated in the events, and b) was handpicked by the US to replace his predecessor, Boutros-Ghali.[...]
Boutros-Ghali, It might be remembered, had come uncomfortably close to scuttling the entire US/RPF invasion scenario when, in May of 1994, he acceded to a request by the Rwandan government to send 5500 UN troops to Rwanda to reinforce the 2500 already stationed there; this so as to stabilize the country at a time when reports of growing ‘chaos’ were issuing forth daily in the world press. These efforts were, however, categorically thwarted by the Clinton regime which used its influence to remove the proposal from the UN agenda. Instead, the UN troops already stationed there, far from being reinforced, were withdrawn. Later, Boutros-Ghali, in conversation with Rwandan expert Robin Philpot, would expand on these matters declaring that, “The genocide in Rwanda was 100% the responsibility of the Americans!” Hardly any wonder, then, that in 1996 US Ambassador to the UN, the ubiquitous Madeleine Albright, would veto his re-election making Boutros-Ghali the only UN Secretary General in history not to be granted a second term in office.[...]
It is ironic in the extreme that Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda – a film unashamedly promoting the official narrative – has himself, in numerous interviews, completely gainsaid that narrative. He has, thus, repeatedly denounced the RPF as the real genocidaires, and has called a Kagame a “war criminal” and “dictator” who is responsible for mass killings not only during the takeover of Rwanda in July 1994, but ever since both in Rwanda and in his US-backed incursions into the Congo. Indeed, so fervent have the denunciations been that Rusesabagina is now officially listed as a ‘terrorist’ and ‘genocide denier’ (a prisonable offence in Rwanda) by the Kagame regime. [...]
As Canadians we are more than ordinarily complicit as it was the Canadian government (under Jean Chretien) that worked hand-in-glove with the Americans throughout this period. In particular, of course, three Canadians, Louise Arbour, General Maurice Baril and General Romeo Dallaire played leading roles in the ‘affair’. For services rendered they were, all three, handsomely rewarded: Arbour, as already mentioned, with promotion as Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Baril with promotion to Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces (in Sept. 1997), and Dallaire with appointment as Canadian Senator for life.
Of the three, however, Dallaire’s role is particularly noteworthy, for it is he who has, ever since, been portrayed, and portrayed himself, as a hero in the Rwandan tragedy; and who has, as such, been pre-eminently involved in spreading and maintaining the Big Lie with respect to it. Dallaire’s 2003 epic, Shake Hands With the Devil, an ironically named Faustian tract, fails spectacularly to elucidate the author’s otherwise well documented actions during the events.
It is well established, for instance, that Dallaire knew of – and, effectively, facilitated – the build-up of RPF forces inside Kigali prior to Habyarimana’s assassination. It is well established that Dallaire, rather than reporting to and receiving orders from the UN, as was his mandate, was, instead, reporting and receiving instructions from American military commanders. It is also a fact that Dallaire, only two months prior to the assassination of Habyarimana, closed down one of the only two runways into Kigali airport – upon request of the RPF. It is also the case that Dallaire covered up the massacre by the RPF of MRND people elected in by-elections in the north of Rwanda in November, 1993. Evidence presented at the ICTR further implicates Dallaire in supplying intelligence to Kagame and the RPF forces throughout the period leading up to April 6, 1994.
Whenever Dallaire has faced formal questioning regarding his actions in Rwanda his testimony has been strictly managed and censored. Attempts by independent journalists and investigators to interview and question him have met with refusal and/or silence. And those questions are many and serious. Apart from the items already listed, they include:
How did the lady prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, come to be murdered at the UN development compound (the morning after Habyarimana had been assassinated) just a short time after he, Dallaire, arrived there? Why did he do nothing to save the lives of the Belgian UN soldiers – suspected of being the team that shot down Habyarimana’s plane – who were subsequently killed at Camp Kigali?
Why, and under whose command, did Belgian army units in certain strategic positions in Kigali abandon them and all their weapons to the RPF?
Why did UN army units attack FAR army units, but never the RPF? Why did he fail to report that US forces, using Hercules C-130 aircraft, were supplying men and weapons to the RPF?
Why, when Dallaire had his headquarters at Amahoro stadium in Kigali after April 6 through the rest of the month, did he allow RPF forces to enter and subsequently murder Hutu refugees who had fled there for safety? And, of course, why did he lie about the ‘genocide fax’ of January 11, 1994?
Still, all in all, Dallaire was merely a bit player in a much larger drama, a drama written and produced in Washington, D.C.
I haven't spent much time looking into Rwanda. I have no idea how valid either side of this discussion's claims are. But that's kind of the point I'm trying to make in posting this:
Unless we feel 100% comfortable in what we're supporting, it is a slippery slope, even in regards to UN peacekeeping missions, to support military intervention on foreign soil....there are two sides to every story. How do we know we are choosing the 'right' side of these conflicts? In general: by what we see in the media....which we know serves the interests of it's owners over the people 99/100. Because of this, we can so easily be duped into supporting interests that have nothing to do with our personal intentions of altruism. As the article states - Rwanda is often held up as an example of failed humanitarian intervention (and thus as justification for humanitarian intervention in other conflicts, as you thirty, have done in this thread)....when in fact, it just might have been a prime example of why humanitarian intervention may not be as it seems. Depressing....not sure where that leaves us in regards to preventing wholesale slaughter.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060425.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/1999/4/5/noam_chomsky_discusses_kosovo
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee