The U.S. A terrorist nation?

Great Debates
61

North Korea is certainly one. This I know from when I lived in Seoul in South Korea. I saw a bit of what those “friendly” Northerners pulled.

Iran certainly is one also. Perhaps you’ve forgotten (or conveniently just don’t give a hoot about) the occupation of the United States Embassy in Tehran.

Iraq most certainly qualifies as a terrorist nation. When that country invaded Kuwait and the other nations in the area massed against Iraq, their dictatator pulled that lovely little stunt of sending missiles at Israel to “prove” how the occupation of Kuwait was really to help out the Palestinians.

I think you need to bone up on a few things, such as reality and logic, before pursuing this any more, OC.

62

Oh Monty, I am so glad you provided me with some “intellectual” challenge. I was almost getting bored with a bunch of “deja vu” responses. OK. Let’s take your “Media-fed Axis-of-Evil” comments one by one.

1- North Korea. What do you know about the U.S. involvement in the Korean War. Did we lose any soldiers there? What did we gain? Oh, excuse me. We still have our U.S. Forces stationed there, near Seoul where you lived? Amazing. Why are we so afraid of a bunch of hungry and starved North Koreans? I mean are they just another poor country like Afghanistan that we can easily take over with our B-1 bombers. Oh, yes. Those starved North Korean students can blow the Sears Towers in Chicago any day now…

2- Iran. The occupation of the US Embassy in Iran in 1980 was a direct result of the CIA conspiracy in 1953 to remove a democratically elected leader (Mossadegh) to install the puppet regime of the Shah purely for oil benefits to the US. The US may have possibly further screwed Iran in 1979 to help bring on the Khomeini regime merely to create a wall of Islam between then Soviet Union and her access to the Persian Gulf. (That remains to be proven in 2024 when documents will be declassified). In 2032, our grand children may have to pay punitive damages to the Iranians that have been screwed by the US for the past 60 years. Today, Iran is suffering from lack of democracy and violation of human rights because of direct interference of the US in internal affairs of that country due to geopolitical reasons. Even as recent as 2 years ago, the Secretary of State (Madelen Albright) had to apologize to the Iranian people for the CIA actions in 1953. We’ll see who will have to apologize for the events of 1979 that brought the horrible IRI to power.

3- Iraq. Excuse me. U.S. was an ally of Iraq during Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. supplied Iraq with all the defense equipment (paid by the U.S. tax payers) that Saddam Hossein needed. Then came the discovery of huge oil reserves in Azarbayjan and other countries surrounding the Caspian sea. It was time to break the mid east oil cartel because we now had other alternatives. So, what better to let Iraq to destroy itself so that we could control the supply of the middle eastern oil. Simple economics tells you that price of oil is set by supply and demand. So, if you control the supply, you control the price. By coincidence, the supply of oil from Iraq and Iran is curtailed, while the leadership of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Sheikdoms of middle east are mere U.S. puppets.

Monty, I think you need to bone up on a few things, such as reality and logic, before pursuing this any more

63

I certainly hope this thread doesn’t get closed. If it peters out fine. While it’s not a free speech issue, if folks are allowed to “witness” here, why not allow someone to alledge that the US government might do something shady?
Just because they haven’t mustered evidence you want is no cause to stop the thread. Maybe others have evidence to present.
This is not a court of law or a scholarly journal, calm down. Evidence helps an argument, but is not necessary to have a debate.

My dictionary has a very broad definition of terrorism, “use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate”. Does the US use force or the threat of its military might to get it’s way in the world? Yes

I’ve seen it in writing many places and no one seems to argue that we supported Osama during the USSR occupation of Afghanistan. Was he not a CIA operative? If someone doubts this I can do some footwork for cites.

I also believe the attempted assasinations of Castro have been known and not disputed for some time. Once again cites on request.

64

You’re skating some pretty thin ice here One Cell

Really? You’re stretching it there young One Cell! I guess you are referring to the comments allegedly made by Ambassador Glaspie during an interview with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad on July 25, 1990.

There is no question that the exchange that day was ambiguous and unclear as towards the US stand on Iraq’s claims to Kuwait. However, in the months, weeks and days that preceded this meeting the Bush administration made several distinct commitments to support each Middle Eastern nations right to maintain their integral borders and sovereignty. At several points did these touch the Iraq claims. Criticism was later raised that it could have been even stronger, but that’s being wise after the fact isn’t it just. Never the less Glaspie made a blunder that day, he was later rebuked for it and in the Democrats (perhaps rightfully) made quite a big deal out of it in the subsequent elections. 12 years down the line, we pretty much agree that it was a mistake, a tragic mistake, but not pursuit of policy. If you have information otherwise, please furnish us a cite for it.

I beg your pardon? Being in a somewhat more subdued mood today than usually I’ll spare you the habitual explosion that such ignorant statements provokes from me. Would you be so kind as to explain where from you get the absurd idea that the EU, staunchest ally of the US conspires against her? An expression of opinion in the form of a demonstration does not necessarily equate with policy of the administration, nor does it even by far have to represent the view of the majority. More often it is the reverse.

All by itself a harmless and commendable thing to want to avoid. However, in context with the rest of your posts I’d like to use it to point something out. You’re mixing up causality and conspiracy. When the US supported the Shah’s return to absolute power in Iran in the 1950s I am fairly certain that it was not part of a conspiracy that would result in destabilizing the Middle East in the late 1970s. There is a relationship between this event and the Iranian revolution, but that does not prove intent from the US side. It is fairly strange to think so considering that Iran under the Shah was a devoted ally of the US, hence the hostility of post revolution Iran. Politics might be long term, but to think that military and security strategists can effectively control international events in one of the world’s most volatile regions for close to 30 years is just plain absurd.

What on earth is coincidence theory? To me it sounds like new speak by conspiracy theorists that are afraid of being labeled as pathologically paranoid. Please enlighten us.

You seem to be a little more than worried about the perceived plots that are out there than what is healthy. As a rule in Great Debates here at the SDMB we are expected to be able to back our statements with facts and figures through cites. If you have none you are posting in the wrong forum. Obviously I can’t speak for the mods and admins, but that’s the sort of thing I’ve noted that they frown upon.

I think I just gave you my view re MEBs input. Re what has transpired beyond that I think that a mildly interesting OP has degenerated into a hodgepodge of half-baked and un-backed statements back and forth, where the absence of constructive dialog and informed debate is deplorable.

‘kay! One more like that one and my subdued mood won’t hold it back. Capice? I could direct you to a good solid dozen posts by this very poster here that would probably give you a far clearer view on Franco US relations than you’re willing to swallow.

Que? What on earth are you trying to say. Obviously you don’t know that much about the Korean War. Would you care to develop this here a little so as to make it somewhat more comprehensible what your point is, if you have one that is?

As for part I; I already commented the absolute idiocy of such a statement. As for part II; how convenient is it not that you can hide behind the classified documents. But you see that won’t do it for me. Build a case for us here, show us why we should believe you. Start with Oliver North, or something just give us some kind of fucking substance to debate from. Do you understand the word ’cite’???

What on earth are you babbling about? The contrary is quite the reality. You have the grasp of world economics of a preschooler it would seem. The ‘destruction’ of Iraq through the Gulf War did nothing positive to oil prices, to the contrary. In as much as that it had to do with oil (which it did) it was the fear that a destabilized Middle East drives the price of oil up, which further motivated the Allies to strike at Iraq. Oil is a scarce resource and nations that consume more than they produce have all the interest in the world to keep the supply high as this keeps the price low. That is how supply and demand works bubba. Hence incapacitating one of the large producers of oil was not one of the desirable effects of the Gulf War. However, had we not done so the effect might have been that even a larger portion of Middle Eastern Oil production would have suffered decline.

Nice to see you in here as well perspective. Glad to hear that you support your buddy here. Are you the guy with the evidence? If so let’s hear it, can we?

As for the OP it’s been answered here and in other places. The US might have engaged in acts of terror at times. So have most all nations on earth. That doesn’t make the US a terrorist nation. Ironically though, except for the OP there has been not a single sensible example of alleged US terror so far. Read some other threads about the topic. I’m tired of linking just search the board.

Sparc

65

Are you telling the truth here, OC? Let me know if you really believe that garbage you posted so I can tell if you’re doing this for fun or if you’re really serious.

66

Lots of Laughs
:smiley:

I knew the conspiracy nut would finally show his true colors. Why can’t you just come out and say what you really believe from the start OneCell? I have a new title for you.

I dub thee… ** The Ventriloquist Instigator**

You spew conspiracy theories out the side of your mouth, and then dart your head around asking “who said that?”

We are not ‘scared’ of North Korea
We have troops stationed in South Korea to protect the South Koreans, same reason we joined the war to begin with. That conflict has never officially ended. And before you start spouting off, I know that the South Koreans want us there because I had countless numbers of them thank me personally for being there. I was stationed there for a year. Although there were a few college students who opposed the US presence, anyone who was old enough or educated enough to realize what would happen if we were not there was extremely grateful that we were.

Our meager forces in South Korea are not enough to stop the North Koreans from surging through the DMZ and taking the ROK. Our presence there is more or less a show of support for the ROK. It was my opinion when I was stationed there that we were nothing more than a chip on the shoulder. IF the North wanted to come take the South they would have to wipe out our small forces first, which would give us an excuse to obliterate them. The North knows this, and that’s why they haven’t made a full on assault.

Of course, if the North would wise up and take a look at the success the South has had over the last few decades, maybe they would try to earn that same prosperity instead of wanting to steal it through war. While the North spent the majority of their GDP on building their military forces, the South invested in their infrastructure first. This helped them build a strong economy. Now the South still only dedicates a small percentage of their GDP to the military, a fraction of the Norths, percentage wise. But because they are now much wealthier than the impoverished North, they are projected to overtake them in military capabilities within a few years.

Sorry about the hijack, but you brought it up.
**
Actually I hijacked your thread and ran it into the ground in order to piss you off and make you support the war I am about to begin with another message board that has strategic oil interests that I want for myself!!! ** :eek: :smiley: :rolleyes:

67

Sparc:

No need for mudslinging, and no point to refute my arguments with sarcasm, calling them “ignorant statements”. You seem to take my remarks and draw your own silly conclusions, then ask me for a cite to support your absurd conclusions. I really do have difficulty pinpointing exactly what is it that you disagree with me.

Please note that I really do not owe you any explanation, justification nor cites for my views. But in the spirit of the debate, I offer the following observations regarding your remarks.

1- On the perceived US Green Light by Saddam Hussein. You seem to agree that “it was a mistake, a tragic mistake”. Good. So, you vehemently agree. But then you go on to say that it was not “pursuit of policy”. I never said it was “pursuit of policy”. So, why are you asking for a cite from me?

2- No. I do not believe there is a conspiracy by EU against the US. However, you should see how the US media pooh pooh the European viewpoint on US. foreign policies. You keep on hearing in the US media that “Europeans are simply jealous of us here in the US”. Which is absurd. It is the US Media that is creating an atmosphere of distrust between EU and the US, simply because non-UK European countries disagree with GW’s rhetoric on wiping out the Axis of Evil. So, again on this issue, it appears that you and I vehemently agree.

3- On mixing up causality and conspiracy. Again, you seem to agree that the CIA overthrew the popular Iranian leader in 1953. I never said that the Shah was brought in to destabilize the Middle East for 30 years. That was the absurd conclusion you drew. However, between 1953 and 1978, the U.S. did help the Shah to establish and train the members of SAVAK secret police, the torture chamber of the Shah’s regime (cite: http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/ )

4- On Coincidence Theory. The term was first coined by the famous Canadian writer James Winter, the author of “Democracy’s Oxygen”. It basically shows how several simultaneously independent and seemingly unrelated events end up benefiting a special interest group

5- On my worry about perceived plots rather than what is “healthy”, you continue to lecture that “As a rule in Great Debates here at the SDMB we are expected to be able to back our statements with facts and figures through cites”. Excuse me bubba, the OP started with a cite. If some of you guys jump on some bandwagon and draw absurd conclusions, that is your problem. Don’t ask me for a cite to support your interpretations and conclusions.

6- Your view about this thread says: “I think that a mildly interesting OP has degenerated into a hodgepodge of half-baked and un-backed statements back and forth, where the absence of constructive dialog and informed debate is deplorable”. Well ** Sparc **, you are entitled to your opinion . Now do you want to provide cites as to your claim of “hodgepodge”, “half-baked”, “un-backed”, “degenerate”, “deplorable”? Come on… or rather, come down from your high horse.

7- You said “I could direct you to a good solid dozen posts that would probably give you a far clearer view on Franco US relations than you’re willing to swallow”. Sorry dude, I have lived (and continue to live) in both countries simultaneously, speak both languages, and know more about the Franco US relations than anything and everything you have swallowed in your entire life. Want to try your wits? I assure you, you will lose and your subdued mood won’t be able to hold you back. Capice?

8- Again you say “Obviously you don’t know that much about the Korean War”. Sorry bubba, I bet I know a hell of a lot more than you do, as I have spent a fair amount of time in Korea, specifically in the US Military bases in Yongsan, Wonju, Maehyang-ri and Kijichon. I know the extent of the US casualties in the war with the north and the extent of current US military presence in there. Things were going fine in improvement of relationship between North and South Korea till the arrival of the GW and his gang. Now, suddenly (by coincidence?) we are drumming war against the axis of evil? My remarks about North Korea were in response to Monty’s earlier post. You have any problem with that?

9- Look at your sentence below:

“As for part I; I already commented the absolute idiocy of such a statement. As for part II; how convenient is it not that you can hide behind the classified documents. But you see that won’t do it for me. Build a case for us here, show us why we should believe you. Start with Oliver North, or something just give us some kind of fucking substance to debate from. Do you understand the word ’cite’??? “

As for part I, I made no idiotic statement. Everything I said was 100% facts supported by the State Department as I cited “Madelen Albright”. It was your conclusion that was idiotic. As for part II, please note that I specifically said “…The US may have possibly further screwed Iran in 1979…” Note the emphasis on “may have” and “possibly”. I am not 100% sure that US had a hand in bringing in Khomeini to replace the Shah. However, one thing I do know. In late 1978, Carter sent General Heizer to Tehran to meet with the Shah and convince him to leave the country. In the same time, there were meetings in Paris (via the French channels) with Khomeini, arranging for him to arrive in Iran to take over and set up an Islamic Republic. Most of this stuff is documented in books by William Sullivan and Gary Sick. Just go to Google and search for Iran and William Sullivan. It is all there.

10- Finally, ** Sparc **, you go on with your complementary manner and accuse me for having the grasp of world economics of a preschooler and asking “What on earth are you babbling about”?

Well bubba joon (a Persian expression. as I speak , read and write Farsi), you said yourself that oil is a scarce resource and nations that consume more than they produce have all the interest in the world to keep the supply high as this keeps the price low. Bravo bubba, you figured that out.
Now all you have to do is to get your facts on Oil Production Capacity http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/appd1_d6.pdf and actual production for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Qatar and UAE. Put King Fouad of Saudi Arabia and the ruler of the other Persian Gulf Sheikhdoms in your pocket, and get rid of Iraq, or even Iran. You’ll be still left with plenty excess capacity to satisfy the demand. Now take a look at the future with all the drillings that are being done around the Caspian Sea. It is party time, and I’ve got to go.

Cheerios

68

Thanks MEB, for helping to verify my suspicions.

Can we start calling you ‘Billy Goat Gruff’ ? What was it that lived under that bridge? Wasn’t it like, trolls or something?

69

You must have some pretty long legs.

Or maybe you’re a schizophrenic-astral-projectionist?

Or do you work at an embassy?

God help us if you work at an embassy.

70

OC: By your own admission, your “arguments” are without proof. Your so-called arguments are less than WAGs. They are just your spoutings. Around these parts, assertions made without proof are lies, delusions, or trollings.

71

Thank you One Cell for pulling the proverbial silk string on your self and falling out of the debate.

Some words before I go;

Should anyone else read One Cell’s ruminations and find them witty and entertaining I bless your simple minded sense of humor, but kindly remind you that he remains unsubstantiated and hence un-debatable in any other way than with ad hominems or argumentum ad nauseam which might be fun, but is not so constructive.

To be clear: I refuse to debate with people who do not follow the rules of engagement and rhetoric. One very fundamental such rule is that when asked to substantiate your statements you do NOT turn around and say; ‘Nah, you prove me wrong instead’. That might work when you stand accused in a court of law were the burden of proof is reversed. In debate it is straightforward; if you claim it, then you’ll have to prove it. To consitently not follow that rule constitutes trolling, which last time I checked constitutes an offense warranting banning here at SDMB.

One Cell you wanna have a pissin’ contest with me regarding who knows more about Franco US relations and who speaks most languages? Browse through my posts if you really want to know… you might be surprised.

No apologies and no reply.

Sparc

72

Stop misusing schizophrenic please!

:d&r:

73

Not to intrude on your nice debate with the facts or anything, but…

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by One Cell *
**Oh **

3- Iraq. Excuse me. U.S. was an ally of Iraq during Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. supplied Iraq with all the defense equipment (paid by the U.S. tax payers) that Saddam Hossein needed. Then came the discovery of huge oil reserves in Azarbayjan and other countries surrounding the Caspian sea. It was time to break the mid east oil cartel because we now had other alternatives

Actually, oil was being pumped in and around Baku, Azerbaijan, near the turn of the last century. Azerbaijan has been a major oil-producing area for quite a while, certainly long before the Iran-Iraq war.

That said, far be it for me to dissuade anyone from including the Caspian Basin from any conspiracy-theory discussions involving petroleum geopolitics.

74

Sorry about the garbled coding in the above post; I’d meant the first full paragraph to be a quote (the rest was my own), but seem to have mistakenly deleted something or another. Anyway, carry on…

75

I think that it’s disreputable that our public debate over terrorism relies upon a very slippery definition of that word, and what acts make one a terrorist nation.

Clearly the OP info does not make the U.S. a terrorist nation, anymore than me fantasizing about a crmie makes me a criminal.

However, by the clear definition of terrorism (striking civilians not to acheive a tactical goal, but rather to acheive symbolic goal, or to blackmail a populace) then the U.S. clearly has embraced the methods of terrorism in several instances. Does that make a terrorist nation? Maybe: but that silly appelation clarifies nothing, and most of our worse offenses were at the least decades behind us now.

Hiroshima and Dresden were most certianly acts of terrorism. That it was carried out by a nation during wartime makes no difference I can see: both of those things are formal declarations on paper. The fact was, the U.S. and the British wanted to acheive an effect, and our means was terrorism: destroying a civilian populace to “send a message.” This is the essence of terrorism.

However, the honest fact of things is this: maybe those acts of terrorism were justifed. And THAT possibility is the real problem here. If people allow a natural definition of terrorism to be used, then the U.S. will clearly have been involved in terrorism. However, many people think that these acts were justified. And to argue that, we admit that sometimes the means in this case IS justified by the ends. This is exactly what many people who advocate simplisitic moral stances against terrorism, do not want to have to deal with. And so the Bennets of the world are stuck with an incoherent and arbitrary definition of terrorism, with which we are “at war” despite the plain fact that the reality is that we are at war with SOME terrorists who WE happen not to like: but not all terrorists. And we certainly have made no special commitment to not use terrorism ourselves, or to regret having done so.

76

Sorry jjimm, I knew better, but ‘multiple personality disorder astral projectionist’ just didn’t have the same ring to it. I didn’t read the entire thread you linked to, but I recall that when Bleuler originally termed the disorder, schizophrenia was literally intended to refer to a splitting (‘schiz’) or a lack of integration among psychological functions.

I admit that my intention was to suggest MPD, but now that I look more carefully at the posts I’m not so sure schizophrenia is that far off the mark. Rambling, incoherent speech, delusions of being persecuted or harassed, making loose associations…:confused:

77

Your knowledge of world events is appalling. Lets have a look:

  1. Apart from Kim Il Jung’s (sp) repeated statements that the North will ‘reunify’ with the south, even if it means armed conflict, don’t faze you much. Or the fact that this little rogue of a nation would rather starve its people to keep the military nice and ready. Or divert money (what pathetic amount they have), and develop IRBM’s, to carry the chemical and biological weapons they are known to, and have admitted to, have. None of this matters to you, huh?

2)Nice to see that leftists can justify terrorism. A ‘direct result’ of the CIA, no less! Not the direct result of islamic wacky-ism, but the fault of an evil American agency! Wow.

3)Name ONE weapon system that we have provided to Iraq at any point in time. One. Ok, since we haven’t, and I don’t want to force you to make one up, tell me how much money we have given to Mssr.Hussien, and do you actually have any proof? Or is the word of some zany leftist professor good enough for you?

78

Oh Ottto., would you please! You’re just expressing opinions that are so goddamned fucking…[read the pit thread]

Sparc

79

All right jjimm, now I’ve read the entire schizophrenia thread. My reply is posted in that thread, as I do not want to further hijack this one. If you are interested in my thoughts on the matter, please feel free to read them and reply to them there.

80

My buddy? I have no idea who One Cell is. Why are so many people making this debate so personal?

Even when people present evidence it is often accompanied with barbs and insults.

First,how do you know I’m a guy? This sounds more like an invitation to fight. About a half step removed from “ya’ want a piece of me?”

I’m not sure what constitutes evidence at this point because I’m not sure what a “terrorist nation” is. In fact, I think this could be a debate of it’s own even if people agreed on the facts.

Where you asking me to cite what I mentioned? I really don’t know that that would change your opinion anyway.

but anyway back to the OP

This sounds like an invitation to speculation. Some of this speculation may be supported with evidence. But I don’t think anyone is going to find the answers to these questions in a newspaper article. Actually, if people’s feelings didn’t run so high on this, I think IMHO might have been a better place for it.