26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeSaddam would be a good example. Taliban didn't work out so well either. Don't know how Afghanistan would have been if the Soviets took it though.
I think, in your last post, you've also illustrated how blurred the line between guerilla and terrorist is.
The point I'm trying to make in the original post is simply that we (the west) shouldn't be arming groups just because they'reopposed to our supposed enemies (certainly not without being a whole lot more careful). Even if we think they're guerillas ...[text shortened]... nd these weapons used against us.
Saddam and the Taleban being the obvious examples.
There is one example I'm fond of though. I personally think the French did the right thing by supporting Britians unruly colonies for example. 😉
Sometimes meddling works well.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZI seem to remember reading about a coup that conveiniently ended with a pro-US monarchy and the Shah on the throne. Funny, the US doing this, you'd think they would try to "promote democracy" like they're doing now... or not.
Anyone need a reminder about what happened to Iran's only democratically elected government?
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by abejnoodThe US only promotes democracy in other nations if it benefits us to do so. We'll promote democracy, fascists dictators, far left liberals, whatever... As long as it benefits us at the time.
I seem to remember reading about a coup that conveiniently ended with a pro-US monarchy and the Shah on the throne. Funny, the US doing this, you'd think they would try to "promote democracy" like they're doing now... or not.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it is.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by abejnoodChomsky mentioned this in "Hegemony or survival".
I seem to remember reading about a coup that conveiniently ended with a pro-US monarchy and the Shah on the throne. Funny, the US doing this, you'd think they would try to "promote democracy" like they're doing now... or not.
Any more info available on-line?
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by howardgeeThere's pretty good coverage of it in Fisk's The Great War For Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East including details from Fisk's interview with the most senior British agent involved.
Chomsky mentioned this in "Hegemony or survival".
Any more info available on-line?
It was known as Operation Ajax to the Americans and Operation Boot to the British.
There's a wikipedia article (standard wikipedia disclaimers apply):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
which appears to have a decent list of more reliable resources linked.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf Russia invaded Canada, and made no secret of its desire to invade the U.S. after it had gotten complete control of Canada, do you think the U.S. would wait for the war to come to them, or would they be doing what Iran is doing now, helping Canadian Freedom fighters repel the illegal invasion?
I think that 1)if we're going to occupy Iraq/provide security for the government/whatever you want to call it, and 2)Iran is secretly funding irregulars who kill our troops, then this isn't so bad. If we're going to be in Iraq, we'd better do it right, and the only way to challenge under the table sneaky hostile acts as Iran is allegedly doing is to d ...[text shortened]... so not in favor of letting Iran kill our troops even if via covert means with deniability.
D
01 Mar 07
Originally posted by wibI know.
The US only promotes democracy in other nations if it benefits us to do so. We'll promote democracy, fascists dictators, far left liberals, whatever... As long as it benefits us at the time.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's how it is.