Well, but that very incompetence would prevent it from ever being in a position to hand over power to its Russian masters. So it’s an odd situation – indeed there were many actively plotting a communist takeover, and engaging in undermining the national security… but as a movement to actually take over the nation, their capabilities were limited.
Damnit, Tom~, have you bribed those capitalist running dog hamsters? 
But now looking at it, it IS necessary to recognize that actual, competent, Soviet agents WERE at work and that the high leadership of CPUSA (unlike most of the fellow-travelers) probably did quite a bit of collaborating. So I would rectify and say they had some threat level in them, but just not enough to make them THE big threat.
Whether the US wants an empire or not, we have one. We have military bases in how many countries around the world? 20? 30? 40? We have bases in Italy, Germany, and England. How many Italian, German, or English bases are in the US? This question would sound absurd to most Americans, indicating the degree to which we have been brainwashed into accepting our imperial role in the world.
The 800 pound gorilla comment is an understatement. US foreign policy is composed of little more than terrorism, bribery, and extortion. Remember the UN vote about the 1991 Iraq invasion, when Yemen voted no?
“Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution
to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: “That was the most expensive ‘no’ vote you ever cast.” Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world’s poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia.”
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/117026
The American empire is run by a bunch of sadistic, pathological control freaks. Perhaps ‘empire’ is not the best term. It has more similarities to an organized crime operation. Our recent adventure in Iraq was not a war, it was a mob hit. Read “Crude Vision” by the Institute for Policy Studies to find out why Rumsfeld and Bechtel wanted to rub out Saddam for welching on the Aqaba pipeline deal.
Why would you suppose the word ‘contingency’ wasn’t pasted across Soviet military planning? We certainly did it and they certainly did it. Close calls don’t tell you anything…both sides had them. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis made sense from a Soviet perspective (not the crisis but trying to put missiles in Cuba). The US had missiles based very near their borders so they felt fair was fair and tried putting them in Cuba. In the end we removed our missiles from Turkey to get the Soviets to back down in Cuba (of course we waited several months to make it seem like the two were unrelated but I don’t think it fooled anyone).
Your #4 seems to imply that the soviets were seriously considering attacking the US as though that was a part of their imperial goals. I think the truth of the matter is the US simply represented the greatest threat so the Soviets kept thinking of ways to remove that threat. Not nice I agree but I doubt the US was doing any differently. I think it makes perfect sense and is pretty much what any country does. This doesn’t make them evil or expansionistic…it just makes them realists.
No we don’t. Individual events of the U.S. stamping on poorer countries can be offset by individual occasions of smaller countries telling the U.S. to back off. If the U.S. was truly an empire in the manner that you would like to cast it, then it would not have had to cast all its UN vetoes over the years, simply ordering the other countries to vote the way we wished.
(While Pilger’s Yemen story has some basis in fact, and I do not remember all the details, his claims that Iraq was ready to pull back peacefully or that resolution 678 had no basis in the U.N. charter are simply spurious claims and tend to undermine the rest of his text.)
Seeing the U.S. as unreservedly evil is no more useful or accurate than the opposite view that we only err on the side of timidity or kind-heartedness.
I would be greatly heartened by a list of “individual occasions of
smaller countries telling the U.S. to back off.” I can’t think of any other than Cuba, but they have suffered greatly from tthe US covert war of sabotage, biowarfare, and economic subversion. Vietnam resisted but at a huge cost to its people. What countries are you referring to?
Iraq was ready to pull out peacefully, but they linked this with territorial conditions and other issues. The US refused to negotiate and sabotaged the peace process, as they always do, preferring war over diplomacy.
"During the months of build up to the war the US priority was to block any possibility of a negotiated settlement that would allow Iraq to pull out Kuwait. Within a few weeks of the invasion the basic outlines for a possible political settlement were already emerging. This involved an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, alongside negotiations over any outstanding border issues between the two states. These issues were very minor: fist, the lease over two uninhabited mudflats to give Iraq greater access to the Gulf; and second, the resolution of a dispute over an oil field that extended two miles into Kuwait over an unsettled border. The US rejected the proposal, or any negotiations. The New York Times reported that the Bush Administration was determined to block the “diplomatic track” for fear that it might “defuse the crisis”. It was only in early December 1990, when there was a shift in US public opinion away from support for war, that the Bush administration announced a “last-ditch” effort for peace with a meeting between Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Although this was presented as the US going “the extra mile” for peace, it was no more than a sop to public opinion. The US did not want a negotiated settlement, also sabotaging French, Russian and Arab attempts to mediate a settlement.
The last reported offer called for total Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. There were no qualifications about borders, but the offer was made in the context of agreements on other “linked” issues: weapons of mass destruction in the region and the Israel-Arab conflict. The latter issues included Israel’s illegal occupation of southern Lebanon, in violation of Security Council resolution 425 of March 1978, which
called for its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the territory it had invaded. However, the US rejected diplomacy and any attempt to link Kuwait to wider issues in the Middle East. Just hours before the 15th January deadline expired, French representatives
proposed a four-point peace plan, which garnered the support of the majority of the Security Council. This was vetoed by the US and Britain."
http://members.lycos.co.uk/socialistdemocracyie/SDJWinter2003The1991GulfWar.html
You’re kidding right? The countires in the mid-East are falling over themselve to comply with US wishes? African countries likewise roll over when the US says “Boo”? European nations fawn at the feet of the US? I hardly think so. Are you really going to make us pull UN resolutions showing where other countries opposed the US?
What’s worse is President Bush Jr. has made it almost a political plank in other nations to oppose the US if the candidate hopes to be elected. Because of the Iraq deal (and a few other items besides such as the Kyoto Accords being snubbed by Bush) the US has less automatic support than it once did.
No, I am not kidding. I just want specific examples. You and Tom have made an assertion and I would like some evidence. Is that too much to ask?
How about Turkey refusing to allow U.S. troops through their country? Did you forget that already?
The U.S. regularly has to ask permission from countries that it wants to overfly with bombers. It maintains bases in different areas in the world specifically because that permission is not always forthcoming.
When Vancouver declared itself a ‘nuclear free zone’, it refused to allow American warships into port unless they declared that they had no nuclear weapons aboard.
Jordan refused to allow the U.S. to stage large military operations from its territory. It relented in allowing some special forces to operate from that territory, but that was it.
How many more examples would you like?
sigh Fine…here ya go…
(NOTE: None of the cites below are meant to take a position one way or another on the issues they relate to…this is only to show where US voting and other country’s voting has parted. Highlighting, if any, is mine.)
The site above is devoted to Israeli issues but you can see from the voting record that the US stood pretty much alone. Despite a clear US backing practically no one else was following suit.
I know you specifically noted Cuba as not counting but this was a vote from other countries to allow Cuba to keep its seat which it did.
From this, if you care to believe the numbers, except for Israel the United State’s most solid allies only vote with the US around 60% of the time…not a whole lot better than half and these are our tightest supporters (traditionally). I think it is safe to assume most other countries fall well below that 60% mark and the stats above show the BEST mid-east supporter of the US only goes with the US position not quite 27% of the time…less than one-third.
Hopefully that is enough to settle this.
It’s neo-colonialism, or, I guess you could call it, Imperialism by Proxy. Get someone else to do the dirty work, but continue to control the puppet (or purse) strings.
This is NOT to deny that communism is bad, or that the Soviets weren’t a threat-they were and communism is disgusting. But the WAY it was fought wasn’t the way to go about it, either. We certainly became as dirty as they did.
Again, I say, the nations that turned to communism, ask yourself, WHY did they do so? Because they lost their “freedom”? Or did they really have any “freedom” to begin with?
It doesn’t settle anything. All I see is propaganda from Israel, who has violated more UN resolutions than any other country:
-
Resolution 106: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
-
Resolution 111: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that
killed fifty-six people” -
Resolution 127: “. . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s
zone’ in Jerusalem” -
Resolution 162: “. . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”
-
Resolution 171: “. . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel
in its attack on Syria” -
Resolution 228: “. . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in
the West Bank, then under Jordanian control” -
Resolution 237: “. . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967
Palestinian refugees” -
Resolution 248: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on
Karameh in Jordan” -
Resolution 250: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem” -
Resolution 251: “. . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade
in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250” -
Resolution 252: “. . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify
Jerusalem as Jewish capital” -
Resolution 256: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation”"
-
Resolution 259: “. . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN
mission to probe occupation” -
Resolution 262: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut
airport” -
Resolution 265: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt
in Jordan” -
Resolution 267: “. . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts
to change the status of Jerusalem” -
Resolution 270: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on
villages in southern Lebanon” * Resolution 271: “. . . ‘condemns’
Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem” -
Resolution 279: “. . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from
Lebanon” -
Resolution 280: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against
Lebanon” -
Resolution 285: “. . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form
Lebanon” -
Resolution 298: “. . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status
of Jerusalem” -
Resolution 313: “. . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against
Lebanon” -
Resolution 316: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on
Lebanon” -
Resolution 317: “. . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release
Arabs abducted in Lebanon” -
Resolution 332: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks
against Lebanon” -
Resolution 337: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s
sovereignty” -
Resolution 347: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
-
Resolution 425: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces
from Lebanon” -
Resolution 427: ". . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its
withdrawal from Lebanon’ -
Resolution 444: “. . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation
with UN peacekeeping forces” -
Resolution 446: “. . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are
a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the
Fourth Geneva Convention” -
Resolution 450: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”
-
Resolution 452: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building
settlements in occupied territories” -
Resolution 465: “. . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks
all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements
program” -
Resolution 467: “. . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military
intervention in Lebanon” -
Resolution 468: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal
expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate
their return” -
Resolution 469: “. . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to
observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians” -
Resolution 471: “. . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s
failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention” -
Resolution 476: “. . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to
Jerusalem are ‘null and void’” -
Resolution 478: “. . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’
for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’” -
Resolution 484: “. . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-
admit two deported Palestinian mayors” -
Resolution 487: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack
on Iraq’s nuclear facility” -
Resolution 497: “. . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of
Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel
rescinds its decision forthwith” -
Resolution 498: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”
-
Resolution 501: “. . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against
Lebanon and withdraw its troops” -
Resolution 509: “. . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces
forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon” -
Resolution 515: “. . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of
Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in” -
Resolution 517: “. . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces
from
Lebanon” -
Resolution 518: “. . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with
UN forces in Lebanon” -
Resolution 520: “. . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West
Beirut” -
Resolution 573: ". . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing
Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters -
Resolution 587: “. . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to
withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to
withdraw” -
Resolution 592: “. . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of
Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops” -
Resolution 605: ". . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and
practices denying the human rights of Palestinians -
Resolution 607: ". . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva
Convention -
Resolution 608: “. . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the
United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians” -
Resolution 636: ". . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians -
Resolution 641: ". . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuingdeportation
of Palestinians -
Resolution 672: ". . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against
Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount -
Resolution 673: ". . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal tocooperate
with the United Nations -
Resolution 681: ". . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the
deportation of Palestinians -
Resolution 694: ". . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate
return -
Resolution 726: ". . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’sdeportation of
Palestinians -
Resolution 799: ". . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of
413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
So what? This isn’t about the right or wrong of Israel or the right or wrong of the US or the right or wrong of anything. You asked for cites on times countries opposed the United States and that’s what you got.
If you want to debate whether the US or Israeli position for each of those resolutions was justified that’s be an entirely different thread (or set of threads).
Back to December’s original question: to what extent were domestic AMERICAN communists a threat to national security?
That there were Americans with communist sympathies who gave valuable data to the Soviets in the 1940’s is undeniable. But if you look at the spies who did the most damage to U.S. security SINCE the 1940’s, you’ll find that almost none of them were communists or ideologues of any kind. The Americans who’ve done the most to compromise our security were usually mercenary types who betrayed the U.S. for MONEY, not out of any great love for the Soviet Union.
Meaning that:
-
contemptible though they were, the Hollywood Ten and their ilk were mighty small potatoes.
-
The people in the State Department that the HUAC should have worried about weren’t the guys who went to a few boring Communist party meetings in their college years, but the guys who were living beyond their means and engaging in conspicuous consumption, due to good old fashioned bribery.
Beyond UN issues, in addition to the points that Sam Stone pointed out, we have (off the top of my head):
Canadian refusal to accede to the Helms-Burton bill restricting trade with Cuba.
(Actually, we have universal refusal to go along with Helms-Burton, but Canada is in the most jeopardy from trade sanctions and it has consistently refused to recognize Helms-Burton as legitimate.)
Despite being a client state of the U.S. when looking to suppress its own insurgencies, the Philippines refused to allow the U.S. Navy to continue to use Subic Bay in actions taken in 1991-92.
Japan has frequently refused U.S. demands on trade issues, despite the fact that the U.S. is Japan’s largest trading partner.
Mexico did not cave in to U.S. pressure to vote in support of the war against Iraq, despite enormous pressure from the U.S. Mexico has also continued to resist U.S. demands that Mexico expend more effort controlling and patroling its borders to prevent illegal immigration to the U.S. from all of Central America.
Similarly, Pakistan, despite the immediate presence of the U.S. as it messes around in Afghanistan, resisted insistence from the U.S. that it support the Iraq invasion.
I’m sorry, but the notion that the U.S. simply gets its way all the time cannot be supported–even when the claim is modified to exclude major European nations, China, and Russia.
The point I was making, which I go into some detail on after the end of the passage you quoted, is that there were many close calls during the Cold War. You assumed I was talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. That’s what I wasn’t talking about. To me, that wasn’t even one of the close calls. There were many, but that wasn’t one of them. To me, a close call is when the POTUS is seriously thinking about, or does, release control of the nuclear weapons of the US to the US military.
Let me tell you a story based on a real event. I don’t know all the facts, but the actual cause of the crisis was real, and similar events happened more than once.
Bedroom of the White House 2 AM
Pres. aide: Mr. President, wake up sir, NORAD is tracking multiple inbound ICBMs over the North Pole. You need to move NOW, sir!
President: "Wha?! Where are my pants?! Where are my glasses?! What the fuck did you say?!
Inbound Soviet ICBMs, sir, many of them, headed for us.
President: “Get me the Joint Chiefs on the secure comm. line, NOW!”
Yes sir, here’s your phone.
President: Who the hell am I talking to?
This is General Turgidson, sir. I’m on duty right now. We’re waking the Joint Chiefs. They should be moving in a few minutes, sir.
President: What the hell is going on General?
*Well, Mr. President, about five minutes ago we began tracking a large radar signature over the North Pole that appears to be a Soviet first strike of some kind. I should note, Mr. President, that these missiles should start striking US targets within the half hour. *
We’ve scrambled some fighters from Alaska to try to make visual confirmation on the ICBMs.
President: What about the launch warnings? Why didn’t we get any of those?
I don’t know, Mr. President.
(Thirty seconds of cursing and useless yelling later)
Pres. aide: Mr. President, your helicopter is waiting. You will have to leave NOW sir.
President: General Turgidson, I want some confirmation on those ICBMs. Until that go to maximum alert status.
Turgidson: Yes Sir!
The Kremlin
Holy Shit! The US just went on full missile alert! Go on full missile alert!
F-100 Interceptor over the North Pole
"Falcon One to Air Boss,
IT’S A FLOCK OF GEESE, SIR! IT’S A HUGE FLOCK OF GEESE MIGRATING SOUTH!"
Air Boss: Confirm that, Falcon One, repeat message.
Falcon One: “BIRDS!” “GEESE, SIR!” “BIRDS, AS IN BRAVO, SIR!”
Falcon Two: “It’s true, sir. I confirm. A huge flock of Canadian geese.”
A delay as the information filters up the chain of command, much gnashing of teeth and spooling up of nuclear weapons later. President grabs hot line.
Mr. President: “Um, Yuri, there’s been a horrible mistake. I’m moving my forces back down to peacetime alert levels.”
[EXPLANATION]
Yuri: “Mr. President, you owe me a new pair of underwear. Perhaps you should deploy some shotguns to protect your nation instead of pointing your ICBMs at us, yes?”
People speak of the success of MAD as if there weren’t dozens of similar incidents. Some have been made public. The rest, obviously I can’t know.
Those are trivial examples. When the US gets a war hardon, it pulls out all the stops. Witness these examples from Pilger’s story:
On 29 November, the United States got its war resolution. This was made possible
by a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats, of which a repetition is currently
under way, especially in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Egypt
was the most indebted country in Africa. Baker bribed President Mubarak with
$14bn in ‘debt forgiveness’ and all opposition to the attack on Iraq faded away.
Syria’s bribe was different; Washington gave President Hafez al-Assad the green light
to wipe out all opposition to Syria’s rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion
dollars’ worth of arms was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly
Gulf states.
Iran was bribed with an American promise to drop its opposition to a series of World
Bank loans. The bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day before the ground
attack on Iraq. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close
to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to extricate himself from Kuwait
peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for
a bribe. President Bush sent the Saudi foreign minister to Moscow to offer a
billion-dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in. He succeeded. Once Gorbachev
had agreed to the war resolution, another $3bn materialised from other Gulf states.
The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire
was offered undisclosed 'debt forgiveness' and military equipment in return for
silencing the Security Council when the attack was under way.
Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests from Cuba,
Yemen and India to convene an emergency meeting of the council, even though it had
no authority to refuse them under the UN Charter.
Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to
attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: 'That was the
most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast.' Within three days, a US aid programme of
$70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had
problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were
expelled from Saudi Arabia.
The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council
Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and
economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two
new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by
the US ambassador in Quito about the 'devastating economic consequences' of a No
vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt. The
punishment of impoverished countries that opposed the attack was severe. Sudan, in
the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0923pilger.htm