Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Utter total complete LIE. This is so mind boggling stupid have to wonder which Tin Foil Hat Anti American site you found THIS lie on. Saddam was a SOVIET Client you IDIOT. Your grasp of history and fact is NONEXISTANT.
I think people are inventing labels to demonize Bush and his supporters. I doubt Bush had any deep seated desire to bring "Democracy" to the Middle East before the terrorist attacks on America. I think introducing Democracy to that part of the world is a by product of taking down the Taliban and the Butcher of Iraq and then trying to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from falling into the hands of even worse tyrants.
If you can't find justification for your conscious decisions just keep analyzing your own navel. Sooner or later you will come up with an new theory for the existence of lint.
And our previous foreign policy was working so well
They are "less concerned with domestic issues" because they'd be laughed out of conservative circles if they made public statements on them. As others have pointed out on this thread (and I posted a direct quote in Post #20 that supports this), these so-called "neo-conservatives" were historically Marxists. It has often been said that "neo-con" is used as an anti-semitic slur of sorts, but that's not the case at all. The fact that so many of them are Jewish isn't the fault of a hard-core, principled conservative who despises their political leanings, though the fact remains that Jewish Americans make up a disproportionate share of them. But this isn't a mere coincidence. The simple truth is that almost every one of these high-profile neo-conservatives can be traced back to a Marxist political philosophy that was popular among the well-educated upper crust of most urban centers in the northeastern U.S. over the last 50 years.
Wow. I can remember when Justin Raimondo was pushing this nonsense.
It must have been a bunch of Hippie neocons who democratized West Germany and Japan after WWII....
In fact, my recent "claim to fame" is that I was one of the first people here on FreeRepublic to point out that all of the public opposition to the controversial issue related to the acquisition of P&O Ports by that UAE-owned company was complete bullsh!t.
Thank you. These clowns make me so angry. Amazing how people who always brag up their military service and sneer at everyone as "chicken hawks" can be so utterly devoid of basic military skills. If even an old grunt like me can see the stategic picture, these "military geniuses" should be able to.
No one knows what the second ammendment means! Read it, its in simple english, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infinged. Sounds very very very clear to me. Add that to the history of gun ownership, like our first battle our nation ever faught was a milita of citizens protecting its legislator from arrest. THen add well over a hundred years when not one person even claimed that we didn't have a right to own guns.
What exactly is "his approach" to: 1) economics, and 2) foreign policy.
And it is impossible to describe anything in the judiciary as "progress" until we start seeing how these Supreme Court nominees vote on important cases. But it should always be remembered that if George W. Bush had his way, Harriet Miers would be sitting on the Supreme Court right now.
Maybe it wasn't a "deep seated desire," but he sure did have an agenda in place regarding Iraq that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on America.
Which one? It's not like it's changed. We still sit in Bosnia and Kosovo, allowing islamics to purge Christians. We're still defending the Saudies. We're still forcing Israel to commit national suicide. We're still arming Pakistan. We're still feeding the Chinese dragon.
Angry isn't the word. These people with their third
party mentality gave us Carter and Clinton
I am absolutely for the destruction of the Taliban. Saddam was a bastard, er is till he meets Mr. Hangman. Still, if we wanted to end terrorism in the area effectively, or at least hamper it, the removal of the House of Vipers, the House of Saud is paramount. Look where the majority of the Sunnie islamics are coming from. Who's clerics still preach killing Americans. Whose money still goes to feed and indocternate Islamic radicals from one end of the planet to the other.
Too bad the U.N. and Bill Clinton didn't have an agenda on Iraq, instead they stood by while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands more of his own people and ignored 17 Resolutions over 12 years. And Slick Willy and the U.N. did NOTHING. The agenda was and should have been to honor the treaty that was signed in 1991 with the blood of those we lost in the first Gulf War. Allowing Saddam to ignore that agreement for all those years was an insult to everything we stand for, Saddam had to go and no amount of you calling those who wanted him removed as "NEOCONS" will change that fact
"The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.
The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".
"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.
"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".
This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s." 1
"One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute "regime change" in Iraq." 3
Here then are some quotations that I've gathered on this fascinating early history of CIA involvement in the vicious history of "regime change" in Iraq:In early 1963, Saddam had more important things to worry about than his outstanding bill at the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. "We really had the ts crossed on what was happening," James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. "We regarded it as a great victory." Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. "We came to power on a CIA train," admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful. To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his sup- porters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers." 2
Sources: BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Saddam's parallel universe
Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, excerpt from Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, 2000. Cited by Tim Buckley
"The CIA has been organizing "regime change" for 50 years. They have removed many governments that are unfriendly to US corporate interests and replaced them with regimes that are more likely to work closely and slavishly to carry out the economic and geopolitical desires of the US corporate elite.
But the CIA's crimes don't end when a right-wing coup has succeeded. The CIA then has to keep its repressive despots in power in order to ensure that they can put into place and then maintain a variety of unjust economic systems and structures. This is done with arms sales (and outright gifts of "surplus" weapons), glowing diplomatic support, "intelligence support" (sic) and massive economic investment (i.e., pillaging as much profit as possible by exploiting the natural resources that drew them in there in the first place, and handing out some of the spoils to a loyal local elite).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.