Australia is, to the best of my knowledge, the second country after Britain to declare that they will fight alongside the US in the upcoming action to remove Saddam.
Even if they weren't into it before...they most certainly are now...after Bali.
I believe there are more than eight and possibly as many as ten countries that are ready to go along with the US at this point. Canada will be there as well.
It will be a coalition action for certain. First, we will send in UN weapons inspectors, as per UN regulations. The big question in everyone's mind is...will Saddam allow unlimited access to his "Presidential Areas" so that we can be sure he isn't cooking up something diabolical there. He would NOT let UN weapons inspectors into those areas the last time around. Why not....unless he has something to hide?
Saddam and Iraq were defeated in a war, The conditions that he agreed to in order to stay in power and have the allies (us) pull out and leave Iraq alone was the admitting of UN weapons inpectors, in order to make sure he didn't use his oil wealth to make war on his neighbors again. He broke all of these conditions and is now in violation of every single UN directive concerning Iraq and weapons manufacturing.
Who checks the US weapons? The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have a number of treaties which regularly allow inspections by each other's experts. This is done under the supervision of the UN Security council. The fact that open war never broke out between these two historic adversaries would seem to indicate that this system works quite well. Both sides have been regularly reducing the numbers of weapons of mass destruction that they currently have in their arsenals.
The fact that the United States still regularly does this, even ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union speaks volumes about the true intentions of the Americans. The Americans are the only true "Superpower" left at the present time. They could easily dominate the world by military force if they wanted to. They could move into each country in the world one at a time or in groups and take them by sheer force...or by the simple threat of that force.
They have shown no signs of doing this at all.
Saddam, on the other hand, has made war on four of his neighboring countries without being attacked by any of them first. One of them...Kuwait...didn't even have a real army. He has launched chemical weapons (mustard gas and the like) against both neighboring Iran and his own people! He used it to snuff out thousands of Kurds who are Iraqi citizens. He has used these weapons on his own people inside his own country!
Chemical weapons are so terrible that they weren't used by either side in the second world war (they've been around since WW1)
Even when the French and British were losing badly at the beginning of WW2 and even when Germany was in it's death throes near the end, nobody used them. Not even once.
Saddam HAS used them....and quite recently.
Yes, the United States has weapons of terrible destruction. When was the last time you heard of them using those weapons? They could have gassed us and taken over all of our resources in a few days...free and clear. They could have nuked Mexico, solved the problem they have with illegals crossing into the US and had all of Mexico's vast oil reserves for free, instead of paying for them. They could have taken out Colombia and rendered the coca fields useless from a great distance with no loss of American lives at all. That would have solved one of their most pressing domestic problems in a heartbeat.
But they didn't do it.
Does this tell you something?
Saddam has shown no such restraint with his use of weapons of mass destruction. Even on his own people.
Which brings me to my second comment .
You said "...if Iraq doesn't want to be democratic, then so what?.."
Well, we have no way of knowing exactly what the Iraqi people actually want, since they don't have a chance to say for themselves. It's a dictatorship and they have no say at all in what Saddam does. Nada.
Or do you actually believe that the election they just had...where Saddam got 100% of the vote and was, coincidentally, the only name on the ballot...was actually a valid represntation of the will of the Iraqi people? Get real.
Saddam seized power in that country during a bloody coup and maintains his hold on Iraq through fear and murder. It is, most definitely, NOT like anything we have here in the "hypocritical" west. Every single person who lives in Iraq...except Saddam...is subject to arrest, torture or death if they don't go along with what he has in mind. He has even personally killed several members of his own close family just to keep everyone in line. This man is a twisted animal who will stop at nothing to gain and retain power and have his own way with everyone involved.
He has a huge amount of oil wealth...and he has been financing terrorism for several decades. This is not a new revelation. It's well documented.
He must go....preferably sooner, rather than later. I suspect that a great many Iraqi citizens feel exactly the same way.
Let's let the people of Iraq decide what they really want to do. Let's at least hear from them...and let them tell us. Instead of listening to what Saddam SAYS they want.
I bet they just want to live a decent life without making war and raining destruction on all and sundry. Life is a lot better when you're NOT making war on everybody.
But...let's hear from the Iraqi people. just to find out what they actually think.
That won't happen as long as Saddam is in power. He HAS to go!
There is something else I'd like to say here....and I hope you take it the right way. I don't mean to insult anyone, but...
There seem to be quite a few people here in Canada who say "Bush is just as bad as Saddam... or... Bush is WORSE than Saddam" I hear this often enough that I just have to comment about it.
The ability to tell friend from foe....to tell the "good guys from the bad guys" is part of the basic human survival instict, It was crucial to helping us survive all those thousands of years before we attained true civilisation. It is still crucial today. It is possible that some of it has been bred out of us during the last hundred years or so, but I like to think that it's still there...just under the surface.
Use that instinct when someone tells you that "this is the good guy" or "this is the bad guy" Look closely at all of the facts...and I truly mean ALL of them! The choices we make using this basic human instinct can save our lives or end them in a heartbeat. Just ask anyone who lives in the seedier sections of a very big city, or in a dog-eat-dog jungle environment. One animal can help you survive...one is food...and one wants to make YOU it's food.
You have to be able to tell the difference between them, in order to stay alive.
And you have to be able to tell the difference between who is your friend and who is truly the enemy in these desperate times.
Ask yourself if YOU can tell the difference between friend and foe. You need to be able to make this distinction before you can make a real assesment of a situation.
Wow the propaganda machine is in high gear, I've never seen so many war related documentaries and movies on satellite as just now. Even a hoary old BBC classic about the effects of nuclear war on Britain has been trotted out. It won an academy award at the time.
Endless pieces about Saddam and Iraq. It is feeling a bit 1984ish. I guess the item last year that gave me the most gloomy feeling was the "Homeland Defence" move. That Bush would use a phrase that smacked both of early Nazi AND 1984 just shows how illiterate and out of touch he actually is. Gary Trudeau nails Bush perfectly in his daily cartoons which I love.
Scary times.......;-(
__________________ Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
Hmmm just read an interesting piece in the Star about JWs fixation with Iraq. I didn't know that his father and family were the target of a serious assassination attempt by Iraq back in the 90s. Certainly sheds some light on his actions and Iraq's referral to "old issues".
As if the CIA hasn't lots of skeletons as well.
Better smileys needed to express this....sqeeeeek
__________________ Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who checks the US weapons? The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have a number of treaties which regularly allow inspections by each other's experts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And of course, Russia has complete access to *all* American army bases and weapons-research facilities, right? Complete disclosure. Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeee.....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yes, the United States has weapons of terrible destruction. When was the last time you heard of them using those weapons? They could have (Edit-done a bunch of nasty things-)
But they didn't do it.
Does this tell you something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. has done lots of nasty things without using weapons of mass destruction, from the devastating invasion of Panama, where hundreds (some say thousands) of innocent people were murdered and their bodies dumped in mass graves during the invasion to get Noriega (another CIA asset). See "The Panama Deception", available at many leftie video stores, university libraries, etc. Then there are the flagrant violations of international law, such as the mining of Nicaragua's port (the World Court deemed it illegal, but Washington said "we don't recognize your authority"), CIA drug running, arms to Iran for hostages, ad infinitum.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Saddam seized power in that country during a bloody coup and maintains his hold on Iraq through fear and murder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...and, until Kuwait, through the express and enthusiastic support from the U.S....
As for other points made above...too many to address them all without getting into an encyclopaedic-length treatise here... [img]smile.gif[/img]
But one thing: The thought that the Iraq war will be "quick". Only if the U.S. is indiscriminate in its attacks (i.e. _really_ "bomb them back to the stone age" (which is a terrible thing, considering the Iraq region is the cradle of humanity for us non-creationists)), and if Saddam just rolls over without much response.
As for post-war Iraq... the West has been pitifully slow and inadequate in fulfilling its promises for reconstruction aid and support to Afghanistan, despite many great pronouncements that once the Taliban were gone, all would be right with the world.
Following the U.S.-supported election defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Chamorro and successive governments destroyed the social gains made, while opening up markets to U.S. business. Rural health and education programmes were eliminated (the rural areas were seen as very pro-Sandinista, which is why the Contra criminals targetted rural clinics and schools in their terrorist campaign, again, with the support of the U.S. and Ronnie Ray-Gun).
Let me just lay it out plain and simple: The whole Bush-Cheney-Rice administration is only slightly less evil than Saddam... and I say "slightly" only because I'm fairly sure they don't plan to bomb Canada (in the near future, anyway... we'll see after we relax our Marijuana laws...). Of course, neither do I fear an attack by Saddam on my blueberry-laden fields, so I guess we can consider them equally evil.
Amerika (the government) is as much a "rogue state" as any of 'em, and is more dangerous than all due to its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and it's history of (a) using 'em and (b) ignoring international law when it has objectives it wants to meet.
[And since my comments are now a matter for the public record, I can kiss any hope of a civil service job goodbye... anybody see the West Wing last week? Lily Tomlin's character's old letter to the president? Hilarious! Martin Sheen for President!]
My goodness Mark...you do have it bad don't you? What did they use for the indoctrination? Cattle prods? Drugs? Both?
Trust me, recovery is possible....but it takes years of open-minded observation of world events before the light begins to shine and the old tarnished ideas fall away.
I know this because I started out very much on the leftish side of things. Been there, man. I grew up in the sixties and, believe me, Nixon was the enemy and we all read Mao's little red book. It had some serious validity, and the established norms did not! We constantly heard about CIA plots and how the Soviet Union was being maligned by the government influenced media. We were all pretty sure ,in our own minds, that they had a better way. Most people I knew were of a single mind on this....and we were all determined to make things right when we finally came of age as a generation and controlled the destiny of the world.
Interestingly...most everyone in my generation has changed their tune as the years went by. Each one of us came to our current understanding of how the world really worked by a different means. Some had families and found out that dealing with the world on a day to day basis required decisions based in fact, rather than on lofty ideals that have no basis in fact. Others started their own businesses and quickly learned to tell truth from fiction. Most of us watched the world unfold before us and came to some similar conclusions...
Me? I went to work in South America.
That was a wake up call like a bucket of cold water in the face.
I was in Venezuela during one of their chaotic elections, and worked near Tikal in Guatemala while guerillas shot at our camp. It gets your attention, believe me. That's when you start to ask them..."why are you doing this?" The answers were quite illuminating. They had more to do with who was paying the bills than any real hatred of the US.
I spent time in Nicaragua during Ortega's reign of terror and was there when he was defeated (you have never seen so many happy people cheering in the streets!) I guess the CIA could have paid all of those people to spontaneously express their delight when there wasn't a TV camera in sight....but I doubt it.
I have spent time in Panama both before and after Noriega. I was in Grenada just before the US moved in and I remember Geary telling the world that "The people have told me that I do not need to call any elections for the next twenty years. Just get on with the job at hand" I saw the huge military airbase that was being constructed on this strategically placed island by Russians using Russian equipment. This was a small Caribbean Island that already had a large International airport, by the way. The people of Grenada also seemed quite relieved when the US marched in and got rid of that particular despot.
I recall coming across Cuban soldiers, dressed in various different military uniforms, in the bush while I was working in Guatemala and Nicaragua back in the late seventies and early eighties. As you know, their accent is rather distinctive. Sometimes they were even dressed as Contras. Think about that one for a moment or two.....
I have watched Russian vessels unloading huge amounts of artillery and other weapons in Guatemala while the American press fretted about Reagan "arming" the Contras. Oddly enough....none of the combatants on either side of that particular struggle ever seemed to be armed with anything other than Kalishnikovs. Not an American weapon in sight. Interesting, no?
As you already know, I have spent considerable time working and living in Cuba...and I share your obvious affection for both that magic island and all of the people who live there. I have seen the good things that Fidel has done and I have also seen the anguish and hoplessness in the eyes of the people of Cuba. They have a love/hate relationship with the old guerilla. Mostly, they think that he has their best interests in mind and they all agree that he did great things while the country was being supported by huge subsidies from the Soviet Union...but eveyone I ever met there wishes he would just go away now and let them get on with it. Without him, the state contol and central planning that prevents these most worthy people from attaining their place on the world stage would also go away. There would be some serious concerns, but there would also be cheering in the streets. They all need a change. The staus quo in Cuba would be rejected, just as it has been in every other former communist/socialist state, if the people were given a free vote and allowed to express their opinion. This will happen, soon enough.
I could go on and on Mark, but I won't. I have too much respect for you to do anything other than to suggest, humbly, that you keep a very open mind...and watch as world events unfold. The truth will become apparent to you...if you keep your eyes, and your mind, open.
The ideology that you currently follow is very unforgiving and tends to twist and demonize anything that is not seen to be "on their side". This may be, in part, due to the fact that much of the world has tried this ideology and rejected it...it is a defence and denial mechanism. Socialism didn't work... and the whole world is moving away from it. So the United States (the percieved center of capitalist thinking) must have used devious means to defeat world socialism.
So goes the paranoia. And it's pretty easy to use some of the goofball things that the CIA has done in the past to work up a believeable conspiracy theory that supports this. In my travels I've bumped up against some pretty interesting folk. Some of them worked for the Company....and I'm here to tell ya that the CIA and all it's minions are generally underfunded and more likely to trip over their own feet than to sucessfully carry out any great shift in worldwide thinking. Like...for instance... the collapse of Communism or the general rapid retreat we have seen from socialism, both here in Canada and everywhere else in the world. It's hanging on by it's teeth in a few small corners of the globe (like Cuba) but the writing's on the wall.
This is where we get back to my earlier post on this thread regarding the basic human survival instinct that helps us determine who is a friend and who is a true enemy. We live in "interesting times" and this human ability to figure out who will help you and who will hurt you is becoming far more important to our basic survival. Identifying a friend as a foe, or a foe as a friend, could mean the difference between surviving or not, in the coming months. Judge these things very carefully....it's not just an intellectual excersize any more.
Keep an open mind. Don't look at each situation with any preconcieved ideas or predudices. Read all manner of literature and watch lots of different newscasts from lots of different countries. Go and work (and live) in lots of different countries and then I suspect that some of your ideas may change, just a little, over time.
Oh, MacNutt, have you considered that perhaps it's not me who hasn't learned, but you who have become an old fogey? [img]smile.gif[/img]
For the record, I've never read Mao's little red book. Have read a few of Che's, though...
The "CIA plots" have proven out to be real, and not simply in the minds of conspiracy kooks. Heck, it was the U.S. Senate which, in the 1970s, released the (Church report, I believe?) which documented the many attempts by the CIA to assassinate Castro. The CIA's involvement in the death of Allende (1973) is very well documented, and a recent PBS documentary provided a chilling examination (with interviews of the 'spooks' involved) of the CIA's overthrow of the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954. That is what we call a "track record", which enables us to not dismiss current allegations about U.S. subterfuge so easily.
What is surprising is the ease with which people forget their own governments evil doings. But then, I guess that's like all families, eh? If dad beats mom after boozing it up, no-one talks about it the next day and life goes on. Until dad kills mom, at which point the neighbours gather around the yellow tape and say, "Gee, he was always such a nice, quiet person."
Regarding media manipulation, there was a widely-reported press item in the past six months which quoted the CIA as being "proud" of their ability to seed false news stories in the north american media. The Guatemala case is textbook.
"Ortega's reign of terror"? Where on earth did that come from? Even the post-Sandinista Nicaraguan media had no cause to describe Ortega's government in those terms. The only "terror" came from U.S.-financed and trained contra terrorists. As for the "delight" of people when Chamorro was elected, I'm sure that after so many years of warfare, the realization that since the U.S.-backed candidate won led many to believe (correctly) that the warfare would end.
Remember a few years back when chinese campaign donations to Clinton's election bid became such a big deal? The thought that a foreign government or agent could "influence" an election was horrifying. Of course, the chanelling of buckets of cash to the Chamorro campaign in Nicaragua was just "taking care of America's backyard".
Panama: Again, refer to 'The Panama Deception'. A very good documentary.
Grenada. "Huge military airport"? Apart from Reagan, in one of his more delusional states describing it as such, I haven't heard anyone else even try to make the claim that the airport was intended for military purposes. Cuba and Grenada were close at that time, and Cuban engineers were on hand helping to upgrade Grenada's international airport. Engineers, by the way, who were killed by the invading U.S. troops. And as I recall, the invasion was to "protect U.S. medical students", not to preserve democracy yadda yadda yadda.
Cubans were indeed present in Nicaragua during the Sandinista government. That _is_ alright, isn't it? Two countries who are on good terms having troops on each other's soil for various purposes (like Canada and the U.S.), such as training? What does "dressed as Contras" mean, anyway? That they wore fatigues? Rather than alluding to something (which makes people imagine the worse), how about making a specific allegation which can then be confirmed or refuted?
As for Guatemala, since 1954 they have been either a U.S. client state, or a slightly-out-of-control dictatorship, which massacred thousands of their own citizens (mostly indigenous). Russian weapons? Maybe U.S. companies ran out of bullets to supply the government?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I have seen the good things that Fidel has done and I have also seen the anguish and hoplessness in the eyes of the people of Cuba. They have a love/hate relationship with the old guerilla. Mostly, they think that he has their best interests in mind and they all agree that he did great things
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The CIA agrees with you, by the way, as does the INS.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
was being supported by huge subsidies from the Soviet Union...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One thing I've always wondered. Many of Cuba's critics dump on it for the "soviet subsidies" it received in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and claim that Cuba's successes were due only to those 'huge' commie brotherly pacts. Has anyone bothered to do a comparative study of what Cuba did with that support, with the millions of dollars "loaned" to Latin American countries by the IMF, projects funded by the World Bank, money dumped there by USAID, etc.? Who do you think got the most bang for their buck?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I could go on and on Mark, but I won't. I have too much respect for you to do anything other than to suggest, humbly, that you keep a very open mind...and watch as world events unfold. The truth will become apparent to you...if you keep your eyes, and your mind, open.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[img]smile.gif[/img] Gee, that sounds like a recent comment made by a religious fanatic I ran into who was trying to get me to "see the light" !
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So goes the paranoia. And it's pretty easy to use some of the goofball things that the CIA has done in the past
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Respectfully, MacNutt, "goofball things"? My definition of 'goofball' does not involve assassination, overthrow of democratic governments, misleading the public at home and abroad, drug-running, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
...socialism, .... It's hanging on by it's teeth in a few small corners of the globe (like Cuba) but the writing's on the wall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, insofar as Cuba goes, they've been saying that since 1959. That's a long time to be wrong....
I do try to keep an open mind. I don't think that Cuba is perfect. But I don't believe that it is right, just, legal, ethical for a foreign government like the U.S. to manipulate people and nations to meet its own ends. The hypocrisy of calling for "democracy" when one's hands are bloody from eliminating it when the people choose something the U.S. doesn't approve of is maddening.
My literary pursuits are broad and not confined to the collected works of Marx and Engels. My daily news gathering goes beyond the "socialist worker" to include that bastion of canadian political thought, the Globe & Mail, and several additional examples domestic and foreign. The internet has made this far easier than it ever has been. I spent a decade working in the media as a journalist, and I know how most of these companies manipulate what people hear (I'll never forget my first experience of censorship - being given an assignment to cover our city's Gay Pride parade by doing advance interviews with the organizers. Evidentally the assignment editor and news director weren't on the same wavelength. A few minutes before the noon newscast, the director reviews what is about to go to air, takes the stuff I'd prepared on the parade and trashes it. "Our listeners don't care about that crap". Yep, I'm sure all those country-music-lovin', gun-rack-in-the-truck yokels who tuned us in in droves were just sitting in traffic that afternoon, wondering why they hell the roads were closed. They sure wouldn't find out listening to our station.)
Although my experiences are not as vast as yours, I have lived and worked in Jamaica and Cuba for extended periods. Among my friends are people from all of Africa, Latin America and Asia. I guess we just move in different circles... that, and the years of living you have on me [img]smile.gif[/img]
With that, I'll call it a night. We do have divergent views on reality, 'tis true, but at least we have found the common ground of Mac. Hmmm... Apple for a Nobel peace prize? Send Sharon and Arafat Powerbooks now!
Good reply, Mark! You managed to dodge a few of the real zingers while casting some of my more profound points in some doubt. Not bad, compadre.
I am preparing a slightly more detailed reply to your last post, but it will have to wait till later this week because I am just about to sit down and watch "The Panama Deception" on the documentary channel.
A documentary that I would recommend that you watch (if you haven't seen it already) is the PBS six-part doc called "Commanding Heights: The Battle For The World Economy"
It's excellent and , if you watch it closely, you will be able to see exactly why the world has so totally rejected socialism. And it's not exactly written or produced by right wing fanatics, either.
Give it a try. Gotta go now, "the Panama Deception" is about to start.
Okayyyy....just got finished watching "The Panama Deception". I taped it and will watch it again this weekend, but here are my first impressions....
I have to concur with the documentary producers when they state that Manuel Noriega was a thug and most probably supported by the CIA. I am also quite aware (as are we all) that, at one point, the CIA was using some of their minions and transport systems (Air America) to transport contraband. This illicit trade was used to finance "black ops" so that they didn't have to lobby funds from Washington, and therefore leave a paper trail that could be traced back to the "Company"....and the Administration that ordered these ops. This dates back to the Presidency of John F. Kennedy....and was probably justified, in his mind, by the fact that his own family arrived at their high status and wealth by running contraband from Canada to the US during the prohibition days of the thirties. Whatever works, I guess.
The fact that Manuel Noriega had co-opted large portions of the Panamanian PDF (Military Forces) in his rise to power was skipped over rather lightly, I thought. The US supplied most of the cash, for sure...but the result was that, by the time Noriega siezed power, the upper echelons of Panama's miltary were totally corrupt and desperately needed to be removed, for the good of everyone involved. Especially the Panamanians.
The documentary then moves into the death of Trujillo in the airplane crash. I can't honestly tell you if it was an accident or an assasination....but I have flown enough white-knuckle flights in those parts to tell you that it could, quite easily, have been an accident. The weather is totally wacko around there, and aircraft maintenance is spotty....at best. When I left the wellsite in Tikal, Guatemala (on a horribly overloaded deHavilland twin otter) for the last time, I thought I was gonna die for sure. The aircraft was flung about the sky in several thunderstorm cells and the pilots were freaking out. We made it down safely, but on the next trip from the rig to Guatemala City later that day, the same aircraft broke up in mid-air, killing everyone on board. The rest of my crew were on that airplane. This area is only a short distance from where Trujillo went down.
Flying in Central America back then was a real crap shoot...let me tell ya.
The documentary then moves on to the growing rift between the USA and Manuel Noriega (who, by now has siezed power in Panama). It sort of glosses over the fact that the cocaine trade had gone from a minor problem to a huge one and just states that Noriega was now being depicted as a thug and a drug runner in the US press. He had always been thus....but it had not been such a major problem in the past. The CIA had not anticipated the appetite for cocaine among the American public...and when they wanted to put the brakes on, Noriega said "no way!" He, and his corrupt buddies were making wayyy too much coin to cease and desist. Plus, he was most likely using some of the product and , therefore had lost some sense of reality. It makes you think you are superman and distorts your perception of the world.
Then the documentary proceeds on to the free elections that were forced on the leaders of that country by pressure from the whole world.
This is when it starts to get a bit murky.
The producers of the documentary state that "the American-backed trio" who were widely expected to win the election were roughed-up by Noriegas goons (this actually happened) and that, during voting, it was obvious that these men were going to be the popular choice....so Noriega called off the election in mid-vote and started to sieze ballot boxes and wreak havoc among the people trying to cast their votes.
At this point, as I recall from actually being there, the whole world was quite concerned with what would happen next. The Panama Canal was crucial to the transfer of cargo and military vessels rapidly between the two great oceans of our world, and we were just barely out of a thirty year Cold War. Tensions were high....as were the stakes in this particular game.
George Sr. was about to take unilateral action to support the free vote of the people and to make sure that this all-important transportation link remained open to all when a US soldier and his wife were roughed up by one of Noriega's goons. Did this really happen, or was it just an excuse? Don't know...but it certainly could have. The people I knew in Panama were in constant fear, at that time, of the government "goon squads".
Anyway, the US moved in. And they were determined NOT to lose this one, as they had lost so badly in VietNam. They were also very cognisant of the role of television in how everything was reported back to the folks at home. All during the sixties we watched the suppertime news and saw horrible, horrible things. It was one of the reasons that the VietNam war was so terribly unpopular among the American people and why so many were in the streets protesting it at every opportunity. Consequently, the US government was pretty determined to limit the amount of coverage that the US TV networks would have available for the evening news. This was a bit of an overreaction, and gave rise to a lot of questions about a government muzzle on press coverage. Subsequent US military actions have been covered pretty openly by the American media. Remember when the press was already waiting on the beaches in Kuwait and the Marines landed to the glare of spotlights with newsmen behind them. No bullets...just soundbites. Pretty surreal.
At this point the documentary begins to take a bit of a slant. The producers quickly gloss over the rapid arrest of Noriega and they give short shrift to the restoration of the popularly elected goverment (they were, after all, "American-backed"). Instead, they concentrate on how many people were killed when the El Chimorro slums burned down during the initial attack.
Now...I've been to the El Chimorro slum. It was the best place in town to buy dope and I used to smoke quite a bit of it. The whole place was a jumble of tinder-dry antique buildings with lots of tarpaper-and-stick shacks interspersed with way, WAY too many people. Electricity was almost unknown and the place existed on candles and stolen propane stoves. It was a major disaster waiting to happen.
The documentary then spends rather a long time documenting, in great detail, how many people were killed when this collection of shanties burnt down during the invasion. There were several other slums that caught fire and burned during the invasion. Oddly enough, the better built apartments adjoining these areas were mostly saved from the big fires. They were made of concrete.
The documentary then drones on about the carnage in the burning slums and begins to move into fantasyland by claiming that US soldiers were lining civilians up and shooting them in the back of the head while their hands were bound.
My bullsh*t detector started ringing faintly about that time....
Then...we are told...the American soldiers bulldozed these hundreds of bodies into mass graves so as to cover up the evidence of the mass slaughter. Yeah, right. And I guess that absoloutely none of these several hundred American soldiers has ever decided to write a tell-all book or appear on Oprah to confess this inexplicable action. They could have made a fortune by doing so. Certainly others have, by exposing this sort of thing.(bullsh*t detector is ringing a little louder at this point)
There were some mass graves found, but no one knows if the Americans actually buried these people or local authorities did, as an expeditious way of getting rid of a potential health problem in the tropical heat. Mass burials of people after a slum fire is not unknown in those parts....most people can't be easily identified after such an event and the local governments just want to get rid of the problem before disease breaks out. It's cruel...for sure...but human life is not valued in some places quite as highly as it is here. Especially the human life that lives in the slums. Just the way it is.
The producers then say that there are a lot of mass graves on US military bases in Panama...and that the US government won't admit to it or let anyone investigate because they want to cover up their mass slaughter of innocent civilians. (Bullsh*t detector is really ringing at this point)
That's when this whole "documentary" gets a little bizarre....
There are quite a few anonymous voiceovers descibing "lasers that melted people where they stood" and "ray guns" which, apparently, could slice a car in half. This is accompanied by numerous shots of the same three dead bodies lying outside of a wrecked car from a multitude of different angles. Some of the shots are even in black and white...but you can easily see that it is the same three dead people. No way of telling what actually killed them, but there is no evidence at all of a "ray gun" or some sort of "melting laser".
My bullsh*t detector is turning red hot and starting to smoke by this time.
The rest of the "documentary sort of peters out while telling us that the US is now somehow controlling Panama (even though they have free elections on a regular basis) and finishes off by saying that the US is now poised to take over every free nation in Central and South America from this "newly established" zone of influence.
Yawwnnn.....
This particular bit of propaganda is now ten years old and is hardly a sterling example of the genre. It starts out fairly well and establishes itself by using known facts....which is a good way to grab the attention of the audience. Lots of anonymous "experts" that we have never seen before is an early sign of spin doctoring and, later on, most of the voiceovers are done by unnamed people who are supposed to be outraged Panamanian citizens, but they really sound like they are reading from a script.
When the credits roll and you can see who financed this particular piece of...work...then you can tell who they were preaching to. And where the real spin came from.
Nice try, but I don't think it will ever win any awards. Especially for accuracy and even-handed treatment of the subject.
Tell you what...for everyone else who might be reading this other than CubaMark and myself....
Watch it for yourself...then you decide.
Keep an open mind (and fresh batteries in your bullsh*t detector) and then tell the rest of us what you think.
Ah, nothing like a simple question to get the kitchen warmed up!
Washington seems to be more and more Imperial these days. Some American's are standing up and wondering what happened to their civil liberties, but the majority are content to sit back and claim that the government would never do anything that was not right.
Has the U.S. nuked Mexico? **** no, but the US is the only country to have used WMD since WWI. It is interesting how neither Germany nor the UK resorted to CBW when it looked as that country was losing. But the US decided to nuke Japan twice, when a simple naval blockage would have brought the Pacific war to an end. Or did the US want to keep the Soviets out of the Pacific. No desire to carve up Japan, the way Berlin was sliced.
And yes, Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own population. Guess what? The materials for those weapons were sold to him by US and UK companies, that continued to sell to him even after it became clear what he was using them for. And we seem to be forgetting that Saddam was the benefactor of the CIA generosity during the 80's. Saddam is just as much a CIA creation as the Taliban was.
And talking of the Taliban, has anyone noticed if the troops are home from Afghanistan yet? No? If the shooting is over, why are the troops still there? Is it that the US has settled into the role of Imperial Lord, or is the 101Airborne eating dust looking for more terrorists...
I feel for our neighbours south of the border. Having a sniper on the loose is a terrible thing. Mind you, more people die of accidental gunshot wounds during a week that have been killed by the sniper in a similar time frame, but that is not newsworthy.
I was an early subscriber of the sniper as a single white male lone nut theory. But it is becoming clear that s/he is not acting alone. Either that, or the planning is far above what the military gives to its people.
I doubt that it is the work of a foreign terrorist. If I was looking to make waves, I would not be shooting children as they went to school. No culture that I know of would sanction that. No, if I was leading a sleeper cell, I would pick on politicians of any level, police, fire, ambulance workers. If I went after a civilian, I would look to a corporate executive (an oil industry exec would by ideal) or a political fixer. Hell, maybe even a journalist. Nothing like killing a journalist to get the hornets nest stirred up.
But I am rambling.
Is the United States our friend? Not according to the US. The US has interests, not friends. We should keep that well in mind.
Does the United States promote democracy? Check out Chile, Central America (remember the Banana Republics), Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan... need I go on?
The CIA have been caught influencing the democratic process in Japan, Italy, and Canada, not the sort of thing that a "friend" does, rigging the election to suit Washington.
Is the United States evil and corrupt? Well, corrupt probably. But evil...I don't think so. On an individual basis, most Americans are pretty decent God Fearing people. Very selfish as a collective, and ignorant of the impact their wants are on the rest of the world.
The US is not a huge monolith, moving to crush the world. But rather, the US is made up of various factions, that fight amongst themselves more that with foreign powers.
More ranting later, my ear is infected and the buzz is driving me nuts.
__________________
Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom.<br />It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave.<br /> -- William Pitt, 1763
Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
Linear Mode
