And it’s on that basis that I make the statement that “war is good for business”, that IMO George didn’t need a whole lot of encouragement and arm-twisting for him to decide to declare war last September, first on “terrorism”, and then on the Taliban, and now on Iraq. His friends in Big Business stand to make a lot of money off this.
Mr. Svinlesha
I do not know why the U.S. has had what could be called great success with democracy and human rights while other societies have not. U.S. foreign policies are to blame for the lack of humanity, human rights, and democracy in the Middle East and Latin America? I am uninformed about these policies.
The leadership of the U.S. is flawed. Like everything. However, I do not believe that Bush, Cheney, and the rest are evil-doing warmongers that are chasing cheap oil.
Naive? Maybe. Do I have anything substantial to support my beliefs? No. I do not have contacts with any of these people. I just believe in the U.S. and the principles upon which this government was established. I know that this nation has been misguided at times but on the whole, this nation has upheld democratic principles thoughout its’ history.
jacksen9:
Fair enough.
Tough to know where to begin, though…let’s put aside claims regarding the “great success” of democracy and human rights the US exhibits for the time being, as a discussion of these questions would be probably turn out to be fairly dense (not to mention controversial), and turn to a simple examination of US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Do you consider the traditional support of the US government for the ruling family of Saudi Arabia to be conducive to the development of democratic institutions within that country – or the opposite?
Do you consider the financial and military support the US provided to the Iraqi government, up until its unfortunate decision to invaded Kuwait, to promote the democratic rights of Iraqi citizens – or vice versa?
Do you believe the current government’s policies towards Turkey aid the democratic aspirations of the Kurdish minority there – or detract from them?
Well, jacksen9, I don’t want to hijack the thread with a history of U.S. involvement in Central and South America, but here’s some standouts:
In 1953 the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala and started a civil war that killed over 165,000 people. Most of the generals who would have created a dictatorship after winning the war were U.S. supported and trained at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (now the euphemistic “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation”).
In 1973 the U.S. supported the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile and installed Pinochet (you know, the guy that human rights tribunals have been trying to put on trial for a while now). At least 14,000 people were “disappeared”.
In 2002, the U.S. played some role in the coup against democratically elected president Chavez of Venezuela. I know for a fact that mil. linguists at Medina Regional SIGINT Operations Center were intercepting internal communications of the Venezuelan government and passing them on to participants in the coup. Chavez is an idiot a lot, but he does enjoy wide support of the Venezuelan people. Incidentally, Venezuela is the largest producer of oil in South America, and the current administration would gain from a more U.S.-friendly regime there. I don’t have much faith in altruistic motivations for Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
(I know I posted more or less the same information in the thread on democracies and war, but it’s just as valid here.)
UnuMondo
No. I am aware of this odd friendship. What I have heard and what I think is that the U.S. chooses to support Saudi rulers because it is, expedient. Perhaps the U.S. policy makers fear that the country could become unstable and pose a threat to the U.S. In addition, I have heard that what gets played in the media does not accurately reflect the kind of relationship the U.S. has with Saudi rulers.
I will not hurt your eyeballs by attempting to respond to this question. Did this support have anything to do with the Soviets? Or were we befriending them because they were Iran’s enemy? I think the U.S. has made mistakes in choosing to support certain regimes and sometimes turning away from promises made to peoples and causes. My take is that these mistakes are made in the attempt to balance what is right with what is easy, what is attainable / feasible, with what is in the interest of U.S. national security. I think that many if not most of the foreign policy blunders made by U.S. public servants are made because there are no crystal balls. Many of these policies are compromises. Sometimes a compromised policy is worse than a policy that grants one side or the other entirely what is desired.
Read a damm book. Usually information is put in those devices. Thank god this is GD and not the pit I promised myself never to insult anyone again in SDMB.
Hmm…unsubstantiated conjecture and unfounded speculation. Vague, monolithic groups like “Big Government” and “Big Business”. Rolling of the eyes at anyone who disagrees. Sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me.
Yeah, that whole 9/11 thing gave all the warmongers the perfect excuse to go into Afganistan and rob it of all its precious resources.
Then again…maybe it is all about oil. Kind of silly when you think about it CONSIDERING ALL OF CIVILIZATION RUNS ON IT!
Well thanks for this clever display of superior intellect and restraint. 
It’s not acknowledged by ANYONE. I have yet to see a serious commentator on the left or right claim that this war was about control of Iraq’s oil. It’s strictly the domain of web discussion groups and conspiracy theorists.
If the U.S. was all-fired to gain access to Iraq’s oil, why in hell did it sponsor sanctions that prevented oil from flowing to the U.S.? Why didn’t Bush 41 take control of the Iraqi oil fields?
For that matter, why didn’t they take over Kuwaiti oil fields? After all, they saved them. Why doesn’t the U.S. take over Venezuelan oil fields?
“Big Oil” does not run the United States. “Big Oil” isn’t even particularly big. The assets of the top 10 oil companies in the United States COMBINED are less than the assets of General Electric alone. The oil industry simply does not run the United States Government, and not a single conspiracy theorist has ever provided a shred of evidence that it does.
Now oil itself IS very important to the U.S. economy, because it is a fundamental input to so many other industries and businesses. So access to oil is important to American interests, and invariably becomes part of any discussion involving that part of the world which supplies the majority of the oil. It has to. It’s prudent to consider the effects of a war or oil supplies, and to factor that effect into any analysis. That’s a far cry from saying that ‘Big Oil’ is calling the shots.
If you want to move your theory out of the realm of conjecture and conspiracy, you need to provide a plausible scenario for HOW the war benefits SPECIFIC companies, then show that those companies have ties to the administration. THEN, you have to have a ‘smoking gun’ - actual documentation showing that this company is influencing the policy of the United States government.
Until then, you’re dealing in conspiracy theories.
Duck Duck Goose: My message was a little harsh. I said so immediately after I posted it. I had just finished reading half a dozen other threads filled with wacky conspiracies, and overreacted to your message. But frankly, you’re still wrong.
Your fundamental mistake is that you are looking at only the ‘positive’ effects on specific industries, and not the counterbalancing negative effects of the taxation and deficit spending required to support that spending. After all, if the U.S. adopted a new policy of spending 10% of its GDP digging a big hole to China, it would be very good for the hole digging industry. But I guarantee you it would hurt the economy overall.
Find me an economist willing to state that the Vietnam War was a good thing for the U.S. economy.
TAANSTAAFL - There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
UnuMondo:
Thanks for your examples regarding Latin America. It’s so convenient when someone out there has the facts at their fingertips, saving me the trouble of time-consuming web searchers. Naturally, there are other outstanding examples as well – such as US policies towards Nicaragua (unflagging support of the repressive Sumoza regime, until no longer feasible, followed by covert operations against the Sandinistas), El Salvador (support of Duarte and an extreme right-wing government, replete with death squads), Panama (the US government support Noriega’s government, well aware that it was based on extensive voting fraud), and so on, and so on, and so on….
jacksen9:
So you are aware that, at least with regard to Saudi Arabia, the US pursues policies that cannot be considered as supportive of democracy or human rights, all US propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Policies in which, to use your own word, ”expediency” is valued over our recently declared concerns for common human decency.
In fact, you’ve hit the nail on the head here, although you might not realize it. US policy-makers appear to equate democracy with instability and threats to US interests, at least if the democracy is in Saudi Arabia. This is further borne out by an inspection of the history of US relations with Saudi Arabia, which reveal a consistent US bias against democratic movements in the country, in favor of the current status quo.
Saudi Arabians excluded from the domestic power structure are of course well aware of US policies. It’s not that they ”hate” the freedoms supposedly promoted by the American system; on the contrary, they admire them. But they also harbor a well-founded resentment against a government that pursues policies calculated deny them these same rights, on the basis of “expediency,” while hypocritically proclaiming to support those rights.
Sadly, this relationship is in no way “odd.” Rather, it is par for the course when it comes to US foreign policy in the region.
Well, let’s be completely historically accurate here. For about 2 decades, the US supported a ruthless, human-rights violating dictator in Iran, the Shah. When he was finally deposed, fundamental religious extremists took control of the country – no surprise that, really, since any sort of meaningful, moderate alternatives to the Shah’s rule had long been brutally suppressed. It comes as no surprise either, then, that the government replacing his is virulently anti-American. These are the reasons why we were “Iran’s enemy,” and can be directly traced to US policy initiatives.
So what do we do? Why, we turn around and happily begin to supply arms, including so-called “dual-use technology,” to another known thug in the region, Saddam Hussein.
But tell me – why do you think that these things are “mistakes,” rather than carefully-weighed and consciously chosen strategies pursued by a government that, in reality, has no concern whatsoever for the human rights of anyone beyond its own constituency?
I also think it’s time to stop pointing to actions taken in the cold war. It was a VERY different world, and the political equation was very different.
The U.S had an official policy of ‘containment’, meaning support of governments opposed to the Soviets, to prevent them from falling into the Soviet ‘Sphere of Influence’. That by necessity meant getting into bed with some rather unsavory governments. It meant supporting rebels in countries that were attempting to topple Soviet puppet regimes. It meant containing the actions of Cuban insurgents in places like Grenada.
The world was a different place. But then, the same people that harangue the U.S. for support of governments like El Salvador seem very willing today to listen to countries like Syria, Yemen, and even Iraq - countries that are FAR worse than any of the worst countries the U.S. supported during the cold war.
Given the current set of circumstances I think we should conclude that regardless of the motive, the policies pursued by the U.S. would have to be classified as mistaken. This would be an understatement.
Motive. Why would the U.S. purposely work to implement policies that work against democracy? How could that be in the best interest of the United States?
The history of US covert involvement in Latin America (and to a certain extent in Africa) shows that the government supposes that having a dictator which the US can control is better than having a democracy which is unpredicable. The CIA’s toppling of the Mossadeq government in Iran in the early 50’s was essentially to retain control over oil supplies, the 1953 overthrow of Guatemala’s government was inspired in part by a beef the United Fruit Company had against President Arbenz, whose voters wanted him to limit US ownership of land, the overthrow of Allende’s government in Chile was to ensure the US retained control over steel there, etc.
It’s certainly true that the American people themselves would love to see democracy everywhere, I’m American and I think so, and I’ve never met an American who thought supporting dictators was a good idea. However, a great deal of US foreign policy (especially covert operations) is not under true democratic control. As a result, US foreign policy isn’t inspired by common sense (i.e. the sense of the common people).
UnuMondo
Uno, I dearly wish I could say, straight-faced, that you are completely wrong.
I really wish I could.
“But then, the same people that harangue the U.S. for support of governments like El Salvador seem very willing today to listen to countries like Syria, Yemen, and even Iraq - countries that are FAR worse than any of the worst countries the U.S. supported during the cold war.”
You are quite wrong here. There are at least two US-supported regimes during the 70’s: Pakistan and Indonesia which conducted genocides on a larger scale than anything seen in Syria,Yemen or even Iraq.
And there are several Latin American regimes supported by the US which killed thousands which probably puts them in the same category of at least Syria.
It’s UnuMondo. I know a lot of people think I’m mispelling the Spanish “Uno mundo”, but it’s intentionally UnuMondo (Esperanto, “unu” obviously from Latin “unum”, “mondo” from Fr. “monde”). In nearly every thread I post in, people quote me as “Uno” or “Uno Mundo”, so please be aware that’s not right 
UnuMondo
Sam:
This is a delightful rhetorical trick, and I don’t blame you for trying it. Naturally, looking back upon the shameful history of US foreign relations over the last 50 years, it would be nice – and pretty convenient as well – if we could simply rule all of it out of bounds, as an unsuitable topic for debate in polite society. And luckily, using your logic, we can do just that, by utilizing the Cold War as a pretext for the majority of policy decisions made during that period. Oh! We had to support Batista, and Somoza, and Duarte, and Pinochet, and Noriega and the Shah, and Suharto! In fact, we had to install some of them! My God, man – Allende was talking land reform, for the love of Pete!
I suppose, using the same logic, I could decry all those who are still, to this day, using the Cold War as blanket excuse to justify US support of brutal, dictatorial, terrorist regimes – regimes that, just by coincidence, also happened to have had a favorable attitude to US business/strategic interests. I don’t think we would get much further in our discussion after that, however.
You also are left with the problem of explaining current US support for brutal, repressive, and dictatorial regimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia. Now that we don’t have the Soviets to worry about, why haven’t we begun to bind our foreign aid programs more tightly to our much-vaunted concerns for democracy, freedom, and human rights?
Finally, no one here (as far as I know) has claimed that losing a war is good for the economy, so your point about Vietnam is really moot – unless, of course, you want to argue that we actually won that one. (On the other hand, I readily grant you that trying to pin our aggression in that little corner of the world on Big Oil, or Big Business, would indeed be a rather shallow analysis.)
jacksen9:
Another fair question, but you’ve already answered it yourself, at least in part. For in your own words, the US choses to support the Saud family on the basis of ”expediency.” In addition, they have a sort gentleman’s agreement: the US will aid in supporting and protecting their rule, and they will in turn assure the US that it will have access to their oil reserves. For this reason, I have been given to believe, anyway, the newly elected president always signs, upon entering office, a document in which he pledges to defend the interests of the Saud family.
There are in fact a wide range of considerations that motivate US foreign policy, and to be perfectly honest, support for democratic institutions finds its place far down on the list, if its on the list at all – although, to be completely honest, there are a few notable exceptions. My favorite, and one that I think the US can actually be proud of, is its support of an absolutely brilliant Serbian student organization that arguably bears the primary responsibility for ousting Milosovic ( I can’t remember their name, unfortunately, but maybe Unu will come to my rescue). But in general, as Unu correctly points out, democracies are generally more difficult to control. Therefore, in the world of realpolitik, there is no necessary link between US strategic/economic interests, on the one hand, and the democratic aspirations of local populations, on the other. Arguably, in many cases, support of democratic freedoms runs counter to US interests, and when that occurs, especially in Latin America, the US invariably intervenes.