hey risky,
i'll reply to your points below individually becuase they illustrate very well the level of disinformation citizens in the West have to be aware of.
>here was that we ever supported the guy at all.
first to panama:
"Manuel Noriega had been working happily withUS intelligence since the 1950s, right through the tenure of george bush as cia director and later drug czar for the reagan administration. His relations with US intelligence began when he reported on leftist tendencies among fellow studnets, officers and instructors, at the military acadaemy. These services became contractual in 1966 or 1967, according to US intelligence officials...he was recognised as a kindred spirit by the Reagan administartion and was put back on the US payroll with payments from the CIA and DIA averaging nearly $200 000 a year (Kempe, wall street journal, oct 18 1989). His assistance in stealing the 1984 election has alreday been noted. [election won by nationalist Arnulfo Arias but stolen by US backed candidate barletta, through the violent sevices of one manual noriega]. He also played a supportive role in the war against Nicaragua and was considered by the DEA to be a valuable asset in the war against drugs.
By 1985-6 however the US was beginning to reassess his role and finally decided to remove him. A largely upper- and middle-class 'civic opposition' developed, leading to street protests that were brutally suppressed by the panamanian military, under the command of US favourite Colonel Herrera Hassan....one black mark for noriega was his support for the Contadora peace process fro Central America, to which the US was strongly opposed....On new year's day 1990 administration of the panama canal was to pass largely into panamanian hands, and a few years later the rest was to follow, according to the canal treaty. A major oil pipeline is 60 percent owned by panama. Clearly traditional US clients had to be restored to power and there wasn't much time to spare. With januray 1 approaching the London Economist noted, 'the timing was vital', a new governement had to be installed.
......The invasion restored to power the traditional white european elite that had been didplaced by general Torrijos in his 1968 coup.....
Noriega's career fits a standard pattern. Typically, the thugs and gangsters whom the US backs reach a point in their careers when they become too independent and grasping, outliving their usefulness. Instaed of just robbing the poor and safeguarding the business climate, they begin to interfere with washington's natural allies, the local business elite and oligarchy; or even US interests directly.....
Bush's announcement of $1 billion in aid to reconstruct the society destroyed by US economic warfare and miltary attack included $400 million to finance sales of US products to panama, another $150 million to pay off bank loans, and $65 million in private-sector loans and gurantees for US investors - all gifts to the rich at home by the US taxpayer (Pear, new york times, jan 26)"
all excerpts from chomsky's 'deterring democracy'.
>The US did not INVADE or attempt to conquor Vietnam. We (very foolishly imo)
>got involved in a civil war involving Communism.
okay vietnam (i'll keep it brief).
the gulf of tonkin incident that led directly to the vietnam war was a fake - staged by the US navy. this is all on record now. The US was involved in vietnam for a long time before the war broke out. The CIA would publish propaganda in the south about the barborous nth vietnamese and foment fear about imminent nth vietnamese invasion. the key here is that the US (as is repeated elsewhere) was trying to incite conflict and division which eventually was used to justify the introduction of US troops into the country. for the doubters: it would be wise for you to do a little searching through the history books about 'ho chi minh'. the popular leader of vietnam wrote to the US many times for assistance in the 50s, after he had defeated the french. Ho Chi minh wanted US help in developing his nation but never even received the courtesy of a reply, because Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist.
> >I find it odd that you blame the US for allied, multilateral attacks against >Iraq in defense of Kuwait. Iraq refused to comply with a UN requirement to >retire from Kuwait. After COALITION forces attacked, Iraq's response was to >wage environmental war on the region and attack Israel with missiles. The >COALITION attacked in January, and Sadam announced he would depart Kuwait on>Feb 26th.
and now to Iraq: Iraq invaded Kuwait and then occupied the country for a short time. during this time some hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Kuwaitis were killed. Iraq were willing to withdraw when conflict with the US led coalition seemed likely but by this time the minds of the mighty had already been made up. in any case what followed was the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of conscripts and civilians, often in the most gruesome fashion. thousands of retreating soldiers were buried alive or bombed from on high whilst fleeing in vehicles. even a bomb shelter was hit - incinerating hundreds of women and children. power and water services were targetted first by the US bombers - which is illegal in the geneva convention. anti-hussain elements that were present before and during the conflict were ignored - the removal of hussein, by other generals or the democractic opposition, was not an option. Instead hundreds of thousands were killed and continue to die today as the result sanctions. the most common casualties are children under the age of 10. oh and bombing raids are STILL continuing.
> >I have already said that I agreed with statements that the US went overboard >in fighting communism especially when messing with other people's self >governance. > >I also agree that the US and wealthy countries should be ashamed of their >protectionist trade policies. > >Finally, I agree with you that the key point is that we need to avoid >imperialism and to sponsor freedom and social quality. It helps me in the >discussion though to separate out real imperialism from other national>conflicts and interactions.
i appreciate that it must be difficult not to feel condescended to when someone from australia tries to tell you what your country has been doing, without your knowledge. this is of course not my intention. In reality EVERYTHING you see on television and read in the newspapers has gone through that many official and unofficial filters that it is either rendered superficial, irrelevant or plainly false. Although some of you in the UK may like to think that things are different there....sorry. apart from the occasional john pilger article in the mirror or guardian the banal is the norm there aswell. needless to say australia is just as bad aswell.
> >thank you for the discussion,>Risky
no worries
gav
> > >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net > >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:02 BST