Those occupying the upper echelons of the Bush Regime define diplomacy as the practice of removing impediments to war. Indeed, for Dick Cheney and his cohorts, manufacturing pretexts for war is the highest form of diplomacy.
But then again, as Stephen Kinzer documents extensively in his fascinating (and infuriating) book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, that type of perverse “diplomacy” has long been the Power Elite's stock-in-trade.
Of John Foster Dulles, scion of a family deeply rooted in the Anglo-American Elite, one biographer noted that “it was not too difficult ... for threats and interests to merge in [his] mind,” leading him to the conclusion “that the United States might actually have an interest in being threatened, if through that process Americans could be goaded into doing what was necessary to preserve their way of life.” Thus Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, arranged the 1953 Iranian coup that deposed Mohammad Mossadegh, thereby creating the conditions for several decades of stimulating conflict in the Persian Gulf that may well culminate in an apocalyptic war.
I hasten to clarify that the “way of life” referred to above is one in which the bulk of the American population dutifully submits to the benevolent supervision of the likes of Dulles – the anointed Guardians of the Bipartisan Consensus. Keeping the population perpetually alarmed over some foreign threat is a vital part of maintaining that sinister stability; absent such a perpetual crisis, at least some of the people would start agitating for a smaller, less expensive, and less invasive government.
So threat cultivation is necessary in order to ensure a rich harvest of government power. This is hardly a secret; it's been the common practice of rulers for as long as they have afflicted humanity. But the Bush Regime has distinguished itself somewhat by its vulgar, transparent lust for war, and its dogmatic refusal to explore alternatives. It's not their wealth that's being wasted, or their own flesh and blood being rent, by the needless wars they pursue.
To get some sense of just how alienated the Regime is from reality as the rest of us experience it, consider this: The administration's eagerness to go to war with Iran has alarmed Fareed Zakaria.
A little more than a decade ago, Mr. Zakaria – at the time managing editor of the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs – kicked off his career as foreign affairs columnist for Newsweek with an essay entitled “Thank Goodness for a Villain.” The piece contained this breathtaking specimen of Establishment “wisdom”:
“If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast…. If not for Saddam, would the Saudi royal family, terrified of being seen as an American protectorate (which in a sense it s), allow American troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000 pieces of American combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would the king of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the Marines to conduct exercises within his borders?… The end of Saddam Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy.”
Of course, the Power Elite Zakaria spoke for did indeed create Saddam, for precisely the purposes Zakaria describes. As I've said before, rational people understand that sometimes it is necessary to create alliances to confront enemies; the depraved, power-intoxicated people Zakaria communes with prefer to create enemies in order to justify entangling alliances.
However, at some point Zakaria seems to have retrieved his conscience, or at least recovered his sense of the absurd. With the administration and its supposed Democratic antagonists lusting for war with Iran, and the Regime's media minions depicting Iran as a world-historic menace, Zakaria has taken up the unfamiliar role of dissident.
“Iran has an economy the size of Finland and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion,” he wrote in a recent Newsweek contribution. “It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”
“We're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about. The United States government has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years. American officials have barely met with any senior Iranian politicians or officials. We have no contact with the country's vibrant civil society. Iran is a black hole to us – just as Iraq had become in 2003.”
Zakaria cites the account of James Dobbins, who served as Bush's representative to the international donor's conference in Bonn following the eviction of the Taliban. Dobbins recalls that the Iranians “were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful.” After dipping their toes in the mysterious waters of Washington-centered diplomacy, the Iranians wanted to take the full plunge, offering additional cooperation in Afghanistan and wide-ranging talks with the US on a variety of issues.
“Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence,” recounts Zakaria. “The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, `looked down and rustled his papers.' No reply was every sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad.”
The current issue of Esquire offers a similar account of Bu'ushist "diplomacy" toward Iran.
In April 2003, State Department official Hillary Mann received a detailed four-page fax from the Iranian government. The document, which was sent through the Swiss embassy in Tehran (through which Iran and the US have maintained back-channel contacts) contained “a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.”
The Iranians offered to recognize Israel, cut off all support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, banish or imprison all international terrorists residing in Iran, and to end its nuclear program. The message urged Washington to re-open formal diplomatic channels that have been closed for decades.
The Bush administration refused even to acknowledge the overture from Tehran. Former National Security Council official Flint Leverett (who resigned in digust following the needless invasion of Iraq) protested that the rejection would mean “an Iran that has nuclear weapons and no dialogue with the United States.”
Odd as this result might seem to those familiar with conventional diplomacy, it makes perfect sense once it's understood, once again, that the purpose of Bush/Cheney-style diplomacy is to facilitate, rather than mitigate, conflict.
As the estimable Charley Reese observes with characteristic concision, “The reason our so-called diplomacy hasn't worked [as most people would understand the term `worked'] is because the Bush administration position is this: Iran, unless you stop what you are legally entitled to do (enrich uranium for nuclear fuel), we won't talk to you about not doing what you are legally entitled to do. You can't have talks if your position is that the other side must give in to your demands as a precondition.”
But once again, talking with the Iranians is exactly what the Bush Regime wants to avoid. Direct talks with the Iranians, after all, might lead to a solution other than the war Washington craves -- and what responsible leader would run such a risk?
I read somewhere that bin Laden family members were in a meeting discussing investments with Carlyle Group people on 9/11. It is well known that bin Laden family members were ushered out on flights post-9/11.
Additionally, Bush once said that he was not that concerned about bin Laden.
As Osama bin Laden is the bogeyman that keeps on giving, why should we expect that the Bush administration really wants to get him?
Bin Laden on the lam fits better with the thesis of your post than does "Bin Laden -- "Dead, or Alive."
In the first YouTube link above, Bush downplays the importance of one individual -- bin Laden -- to the "War on Terror."
But it's apparent the same Bushian logic did not apply to the person of Saddam Hussein, and it seems like it will not apply to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I can see why a lot of people might envision "diplomacy" as a positive alternative to war-making, but the truth is a free people require neither from their government to ensure their freedom, prosperity and uninterrupted way of life. (Of course, a TRULY free people would have no government at all... but that's another discussion...)
Just because the government exists doesn't mean it has to have a policy or stance towards other nations or even maintain any kind of conversation with other nations. For those not convinced by the myth of the collective identity, it seems obvious that I can make up my mind about how I feel towards entire nation or individual resident of nation X better than anyone else could for me.
Think about it... it's "friendly" diplomacy with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea, Germany, etc. etc. which has resulted in American troops in those countries. It is "friendly" diplomacy that has enabled countries like Turkey to play the role of enablers in wars of conquest. It is "friendly" diplomacy that has resulted in "trade negotiations" with the EU, Canada and Mexico which limit and regulate the freedom and efficiency of American enterprise and vice versa.
No, a truly free person does not seek diplomacy between "his" country's government and any other country's government, just as he does not seek war between his country and any other country. A truly free person is indifferent at a national level and realizes that only his individual judgment of other nations and peoples is valid and relevant, and he acts accordingly.
The question still lingers for me: why? Why do our "leaders" want war. Sure, if I make bombs I stand to profit. But upon inspection, the connections of the military-industrial complex aren't that vital to the Bush regime, especially now that reelection isn't an issue. And it's not like the power elite need any more money. Maybe it's just evil for evil's sake. Or, even though few believe in him or his influence, Satan? As evil as the Nazi regime was, the Germans got screwed after WW1, lubing the population to digest war propaganda. Here, facing few hardships and the freedom of the internet, the nation tolerates, even embraces this nonsense. Very scary.
"The purpose of diplomacy is to protect our independence and security through means other than war."
Teddy R defined diplomacy as the art of saying "Nice doggy" while picking up a stout stick. Different assumptions flow from different definitions.
It has also been defined as "War by other means."
Would the Soviet Union still exist if ONLY means other than war had been used to resist it?
Would we be buying cars and electronics from South Korea (or Japan) had we said in 1940 "Oh sorry, please go ahead and subjugate Indonesia and China to meet your natural resource needs."?
How many more people would have been murdered had we taken those paths?
I should also point out that while Finland uses nuclear power, it's leaders have never stated that Denmark or Estonia should be wiped off the map, or that their inhabitants should be moved to the United States.
Finland was also continuously open and cooperative with the IAEA. Iran has conspicuously not cooperated.
Finland also does not support and supply terrorist organizations to attack Norway or Iceland. Finn agents have never killed US Marines or tortured and killed US diplomats (though what they call a "Tango" could be considered an atrocity.) Neither has Finland purchased IRBMs from anyone.
One of your statements re. the Fareed Zakaria piece was interesting. "Of course, the Power Elite Zakaria spoke for did indeed create Saddam, for precisely the purposes Zakaria describes."
We certainly created the Shah, who in turn (unintentionally through his own bungling) created the present Mullahocracy. How did we create Saddam. He was already created when we gave him an intel prop against Iran, who had only recently returned the embassy staff they had captured a year and a half before. Rather a mild backatcha for what would normally be considered an act of war.
However, saying we created Saddam strikes me as a jaunt into Truther type lala land.
Concerning the Iraq/Iran conflict Henry the K said "Too bad they can't both lose" which pretty much summed up the official and general public attitude. Trouble was that most middle east oil came out through Hormuz under threat from one of the belligerents. Diplomatic statements that Iran should not interfere with shipping were made by the presence of up to two carrier battle groups at any one time. Since we didn't have diplomatic relations due to our previous diplomatic mission being kidnapped and held hostage, we were compelled to rely on big sticks rather than soft speech.
No comment on Dobbins or the Esquire article since I'm not familiar with the background...except: Iran's supplying EFP mines to Sadrist militias is not some little diplomatic piffle. It is an (other) act of war. It is casus belli. That we have not taken military action against Iran already for this is an extremely diplomatic act.
The elephant in the room that you stroll around as if it didn't exist is that Iran has been conducting a war against us since 1979. Its been the same kind of war that the Soviet Union conducted, through proxies with some plausible deniability. It is a fact that before Osama bin Laden's people attacked us on 9/11 that Iran's agents had killed more American civilians and service men than any country since we left Viet Nam.
If you would please point to some past equivalent encounter with another nation that was resolved peacefully, I would be most grateful.
rightwingnutter, educate thyself (and stop with the pretentious language [come on--piffle?] and Hannityesque penchant for koolaid). The CIA, through two of its most esteemed and unctuous Skull and Bonesmen (which Will really should have mentioned), the Dulles brothers, overthrew the rightfully elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, and installed the Shah, a point which you conveniently ignore. Nah, they couldn't still be pissed at us for THAT, could they? Or, as Norman Podhoretz recently said to some, ahem, Truthers, "that's ancient history", which still doesn't make it irrelevant.
Saddam's association with the CIA began in 1959 when he was part of a CIA authorized six man team sent to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, a bloody dictator who had committed the cardinal sin of mentioning Iraqi nationalization of oil and had withdrawn from the Baghdad Pact. The assassination attempt failed, but Saddam had made his bones with the power elite which smoothed the way for his return to Iraq later in the 1960's, where he ultimately headed the Ba'ath party which had been installed by the CIA.
The CIA (and its predecessor, the OSS) has been sponsoring coups and otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries, particularly countries in the Middle East, for the better part of a century. That's the real elephant in the room that you're strolling around.
I should also point out that while Finland uses nuclear power, it's leaders have never stated that Denmark or Estonia should be wiped off the map, or that their inhabitants should be moved to the United States.
RightWingNutter, Iran has never said that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Here is what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi -
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
The word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the WESTERN FIGURE OF SPEECH "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
Geez Mr. Guillible. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
All this hoo ha about who Iran does and does not support doesn't matter one iota. If America minded its business in the region, its soldiers wouldn't be put in harms way.
James Madison, who was the guiding force behind our Constitution, might have been knowledgeable concerning threats to our liberties from foreign adventures:
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
As I believe in "diversity", it would also be appropriate to listen to a Russian, Alexander Solzehnitsyn, who remarked:
"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny."
"But the Bush Regime has distinguished itself somewhat by its vulgar, transparent lust for war, and its dogmatic refusal to explore alternatives."
You've just described the majority of Americans as well. Witness the bloodlust hidden behind a veil of historical misinformation posted by one of your commentators herein. (I do, though, have something of an answer for the supposed query of "How many more people would have been murdered had we taken those paths [allowing Japan to subjugate Indonesia and China]?" The answer is far fewer. Chairman Mao, after the Japanese defeat, murdered tens of millions of Chinese, while fellow communists, such as Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot, murdered millions of their respective countrymen. And yet, your commentator posits that the communists were less murderous than the Japanese imperial government.)
We truly are in command of our own "Parliament of Whores."
Anonymous at 8:15AM. I think that you are correct. Last night I was engaged in debate at Debbie Shlussel's blog. She, rightly, thinks that Condi Rice's plan to subject Blackwater employees to brainwashing and sensitivity training is ridiculous. I agreed with her and opined that I think the problem is the immunity that Blackwater is given for negligent and criminal acts and that holding them accountable for their actions is the way to go. I pointed out that holding those with great authority to higher standards is Biblical. Here is one commenter's response:
"Where is the proof of criminal or negligent acts? Do we take the side of the terrorists over those at Blackwater that are retired military? Wake up! Now is not the time to bring up your Christianity. Even Christ went into the temple to stop the desecrating going on there. Where is the courage in todays Christians?"
Here is another commenter:
"When my son was headed to Iraq for his first tour of duty my first concern was his safe return. I told him that I didn't care if they were 8 or 80 if someone posed a threat to him to KILL that person. The bottom line is that I could care less how many of them died. It was all about his safe return home. Maybe that is too blunt for you to handle. We are at war! We are not over there to be perceived as the nicest people in the world. This need to be sensitive and PC has cost more than one of our servicemen / servicewomen their lives. Why should their families go through a living hell everyday because some view the lives of our enemy as more precious than those of our men and women?"
It is becoming apparent to me that a large part of our populace has completely left Christian principles in favor of bloodlust.
Dear Anonymous 1:24am,
"The CIA, through two of its most esteemed and unctuous Skull and Bonesmen (which Will really should have mentioned), the Dulles brothers, overthrew the rightfully elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, and installed the Shah, a point which you conveniently ignore."
From my post:
"We certainly created the Shah, who in turn (unintentionally through his own bungling) created the present Mullahocracy."
I didn't go into the detail you did, but I hardly ignored it.
RE: "Fighting a PC war".
I defer to your closely translated parsing of Ahmadinejad's statements.
On the other hand, it must really suck for you that MEMRI exists.
Re: "Fighting a PC War"
What reich wingers mean when they complain about how their sainted holy troops are being made to "Fight a PC war" is that they are not given free reign to murder civilains.
Indeed- any regard for the traditional western and christian prohibitions against waging war on civilians or targeting civilians is called "waging a PC war."
It is not uncommon to find American reich wingers call for wiping out whole cities- for waging unconstrained war on civilians- murdering them actually. I hear these calls on reich winger radio all the time.
Indeed- the "principle" the US military seems to honor most is "Coming home in one piece" and "doing anything to ensure that"- like mowing down entire families in cars for not slowing down fast enough at check points or blasting an entire city block with f-16 airstrikes to get a sniper . . .
Since the US engaged in mass murder of civilains in WWII- and since everything done in the "Good War" can't be questioned- Americans call anything short of nuking or carpet bombing entire cities waging a "pc war."
Anonymous 1:24 AM,
"Saddam's association with the CIA began in 1959 when he was part of a CIA authorized six man team sent to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, a bloody dictator who had committed the cardinal sin of mentioning Iraqi nationalization of oil and had withdrawn from the Baghdad Pact. The assassination attempt failed, but Saddam had made his bones with the power elite which smoothed the way for his return to Iraq later in the 1960's, where he ultimately headed the Ba'ath party which had been installed by the CIA."
If nationalizing Iraq's oil industry was such a cardinal sin, why did we do nothing about the Baathist who ousted al-Karim, Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who almost immediately nationalized Iraq's oil industry?
Did the CIA cause al-Bakr to appoint his cousin Saddam as VP? Dulles was long gone by then. It was from that position that Saddam worked his way into power. Why would he need the CIA? It's possible that he used the CIA, but he was hardly beholdin' to them.
Rightwingnutjob, I would extend to you the benefit of a presumption that you act in good faith in believing the hate against Iran which MEMRI promotes, but would also suggest that you look a bit deeper into this organization, which was founded by former members of Israeli military intelligence (Meyrav Wurmser and Col. Yigal Carmon). Not that such positions would automatically invalidate their views. To the contrary, they're no doubt better informed on M.E. matters than 99.99% of the world. Yet, MEMRI can hardly be viewed as being neutral as may pertain to Iranian matters.
Just look at how MEMRI willingly twisted the words of Norman Finkelstein to fit their agenda:
If, of course, you're already aware of MEMRI background, then what I said about giving you the benefit of the doubt is withdrawn. And please stop trying to mislead people. The world doesn't need more duplicity.
rightwingnutter said "Did the CIA cause al-Bakr to appoint his cousin Saddam as VP? Dulles was long gone by then. It was from that position that Saddam worked his way into power. Why would he need the CIA? It's possible that he used the CIA, but he was hardly beholdin' to them."
You're still ignoring the elephant in the room (that being the CIA's constant meddling in the affairs of other countries to help bring about global government), but your arguments wouldn't hold up if you didn't, so I guess you'll carry on
Oh, and, by the way, rightwingnutjob, it may be true that the Dulles(t) brothers were gone by the time al-Bakr appointed Saddam VP, but you can rest assured they had been replaced by other, equally dedicated, Bonesmen.
As you say, MEMRI..."was founded by former members of Israeli military intelligence (Meyrav Wurmser and Col. Yigal Carmon). Not that such positions would automatically invalidate their views. To the contrary, they're no doubt better informed on M.E. matters than 99.99% of the world. Yet, MEMRI can hardly be viewed as being neutral as may pertain to Iranian matters."
So did they or did they not correctly translate the Iranian statements I linked?
"You're still ignoring the elephant in the room (that being the CIA's constant meddling in the affairs of other countries to help bring about global government), but your arguments wouldn't hold up if you didn't, so I guess you'll carry on"
I suppose that's as opposed to the wholly righteous meddling that was done by the Soviet Union's KGB in Europe, Africa, Arabia, South and Central America, Indonesia, and Korea. Or perhaps you contrast to the praiseworthy and noble meddling being conducted by Iran in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq?
I just noticed "to help bring about global government" Is that why we encouraged democracies in Germany, Japan, Korea, and several other countries in other continents? Certainly we also helped really bad guys, nationalists all, get control of their countries while containing an expansionist Communism. Hard to reconcile your statement with actual history.
"Oh, and, by the way, rightwingnutjob, it may be true that the Dulles(t) brothers were gone by the time al-Bakr appointed Saddam VP, but you can rest assured they had been replaced by other, equally dedicated, Bonesmen."
Ah, so that's it. All the world's evil is traceable to 15 former Yale students per year. Thank you for illuminati-ing us. I guess you had better remain anonymous lest you find yourself surrounded by black helicopters and SUVs and disappear into the gulag.
"Blah, blah, blah ...."
Typical straw man arguments, all. I made no assertions about any of the points you "refuted." You even used the black helicopters cliché so often invoked by those with nothing much to say.
Cheers back at ya!
> As I've said before,
Oh, go ahead, Will, link there.
And I can't believe you overlooked the obligatory Star Trek quote.
> Zakaria has taken up the unfamiliar role of dissident.
Or else, the familiar role of Loyal Opposition (as in "antithesis").
Mark, thanks for picking up one of the loose ends I left dangling, owing to preoccupations that made me even less attentive an editor than I usually am.
As to the obligatory Star Trek quote ... boy, was I tempted -- but just this once I kept a tight rein on my inner Trek-Dork. Besides, Tom Clancy already borrowed Spock's worthy apothegm for a passage in "The Bear and the Dragon"... and I didn't want to me accused of taking cues from that guy!
For "me accused," read: "be" accused.
See what I mean about my distracted condition?
Heh. That's the first time I've seen an accusation of a straw man argument used as a straw man argument. Nice touch. It also made a good red herring to deflect attention from my question.
The second part of my last comment was a red herring, not a straw man. Get your terms straight.
The bit about black helicopters was because obsession with Skull and Bones was almost but not quite beyond parody.
It always amazes me that people will fault us for not embracing a movement that has sworn not only our destruction, but the destruction of the entire world unless the world submits to them.
It is equally amazing that these same blame (and lame) layers then tell us we need to show more respect for the views and beliefs of those who have sworn that destruction.
Yet, we take them at their word. We honor their proclamations with our belief in their stated intentions.
Who respect them more? We who show that respect or those who say they didn't mean what they have sworn? I submit that denial of the reality of those stated intentions is nothing more than cowardice masquerading as morality. I also submit evil is abundant in the camp that proposes our lives and views and way of life is not worth preservation.
I request that those thusly opinionated take their show on the road to those climes where our destruction is preached as holy duty. I doubt they would long hold to their current political ignorance.
Containing communism? Really?!
And who created, funded and assisted the proto-Soviets during their Bolshevik "revolution"...and afterwards? And who paved the way for the Chekists, the NKVD, the KGB and the "reformed" FSB to do their international meddling? Answer: The Wilson administration (read: Edward M. House) and Wall St. via Jacob Schiff's Kuhn, Loeb and Company, J.P. Morgan and his National City Bank and the always nefarious, always ubiquitous Rockefeller clan. UK MI6 agent Bruce Lockhart, along with American agents Raymond Robins, J.W. Andrews, Allen Wardell, D. Heywood Hardy and William Boyce Thompson who all worked in behalf of US financial interests and the US State Department oversaw the
"revolution" and actually worked side-by-side with Lenin and Trotsky. (Raymond Robins even ordered Lenin to fire his nephew, the foreign secretary Saalkind.) Throughout the 20th century, the US power elite via their proxy American federal government ensured that their Soviet Hegelian project was sustained through a steady and healthy infusion of Western capital and credit transfers.
Here's a bibliography, just a small sample of the history of the Bolshevik "Revolution":
1)'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' Anthony Sutton (1974)
2)'Why Did We Let Trotsky Go?'
MacLeans Magazine (1919)
3)'Tragedy and Hope' Carroll Quigley (1966)
4)'The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden' Carroll Quigley (1948)
5)'The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Time' Hermann Hagedorn (1935)
6) 'Bruce Lockhart: British Agent' R.H. Bruce Lockhart (1933)
7) US State Dept. Decimal File 861.00/3449
8)'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development' Anthony Sutton (1972)
RNS: So go spew your fecal matter on another blog.
Take a few deep breaths & wipe the spittle off your monitor.
I don't contest the fact(s) that Soviet Communism had plenty of supporters, often highly placed, in the US throughout its existence. Just after WWII its interests and US interests actively collided. Large numbers of US troops and civilians saw first hand what Stalinism was like in eastern Europe. Korea was the final wake-up call.
There were still sympathizers, and some were still highly placed, but they damn well had to keep their heads down. The argument between Truman and MacArthur was not whether to kick ass in Korea, but whether to use nukes to do it. And perhaps the name "Joe McCarthy" rings a bell for you? Communism ceased being a fashionable phase and a distant distaste. It became an active threat.
I lived through and briefly participated in the containment of communism. The US military won the war in Viet Nam where I was privileged to play a small role. They won in spite of Johnson and with some help from Nixon. That was unforgivable to Congressional leftists, and Nixon didn't quickly fire the people he should have, so Congress was eventually able to give South Viet Nam back to the Communist North. They did that illegally, defying treaties in order to do so. Ford had the authority to stick it to them by following the treaty provisions, and thereby stop the North's invasion. He lacked the guts to do so and the Communists took over.
Had Ford demonstrated spine in March '75 he might have won re-election in November, and we would not have had to endure Jimmy Carter over the last 30 years. And the USSR might have collapsed a few years earlier.
From the Cuban Missile Crisis to Afghanistan to Grenada, in every continent, the US pushed back against Communist expansion. Reagan concentrated almost exclusively on that project, with lots of help from PM Thatcher and Pope John Paul. What happened in 1989 was a surprise only as to its timing.
Yes Anon, Communism was contained, pushed back, and soon imploded leaving only isolated fragments behind. It wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't taken the lead. China is no longer Communist despite the rhetoric and red stars. It's an enemy masquerading as a competitor, but it's a regional power, not a global hegemon wannabe.
Leftists within the US are still a threat, but fortunately in this internet, talk radio, and cable media age it's easier to expose their machinations and rally votes against them. It is necessary however that the center and right not screw up and get greedy. Unfortunately too many in the GOP are just as venal as some of those across the aisle.
"RNS: So go spew your fecal matter on another blog."
I'm afraid you don't have the chops to make that call bub. If Mr. Grigg wants me to buzz off he has only to ask. He won't even have to block me. You however are not him.
anonymous 5:58 pm, I like your bibliography. I would add to it "From Major Jordan's Diaries", written by Lend-Lease expediter George Racey Jordan, chronicling his interception of US secrets and materiel, including atomic bomb plans and uranium, sent directly from Harry Hopkins and Alger Hiss to the Soviets via so-called Lend-Lease airplanes.
I would also add "America's Retreat From Victory", written by Joe McCarthy, exposing the treasonous plans carried out by George Catlett Marshall, which handed eastern Europe and China to the Communists.
Lastly, I would add "The Perestroika Deception", by Anatoliy Golitsyn, which exposes the "fall" of Communism as just another step in the power elite's plans for a convergence with the West in a one world government.
I'm sure others can chime in with their favorite books and articles which document the now well known creation and empowerment of murderous Communist regimes by Western banks and highly placed agents within Western governments. I would say that calling Western puppetmasters of communist expansion "sympathizers" and "supporters" of communism qualifies as ridiculous understatement.
How plausible is it that the US government via its State Department would "contain" communism with one hand, which was hardly successful since Vietnam fell to Marxism while North Korea continues to threaten the Asian Pacific region to this day, while creating and sustaining it with the other hand? If it wasn't for the US government and the elite oligarchs which runs its foreign policy there would have been no Soviet Russia and communist China -the two Marxist-Leninist behemoths who provided the assistance for two communist satellite states, North Korea, which the US fought under UN/NATO authority, and North Vietnam, which was, again, fought under UN/SEATO authority. That's my point. It's a ruse for other objectives. The US State Department also brought Castro to power. Read E.T. Smith's book 'The Fourth Floor' wherein, as ambassador to Cuba, Mr. Smith repeatedly warned the Eisenhower administration and his State Dept. concerning Castro's communist background and Soviet ties, but to no avail. The CFR dominated US Establishment created yet another "enemy" for their purposes. The US internationalists who run the American government then turned around and exposed Cuban freedom fighters to Castro so that he could easily eradicate the opposition to his power. Thanks be to the US globalist-minded leadership, those stalwarts of "anti-communism". The US can somehow bomb Haiphong harbor on the other side of the world, yet cannot provide simple air support 90 miles away from Miami? What a joke. (To be continued)
The communist dynamic, the antithesis in the Hegelian dialectic, was fully employed by the American political elite for their own purposes, to provide the means to their end, which is total power and world government. This is/was a ruse. The manufactured communist threat was to serve three primary purposes.
1) The Western created and sustained communist threat was to provide the pretext and impetus for world government. Here's a quote from Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), a Kennedy administration policy wonk who wrote the State Dept. policy paper entitled 'Memorandum No.7: A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations', herein he writes:
"The subordination of nation-states to a true world government appears impossible; but if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might well lose whatever incentive it has for world government."
To break it down, Bill Jasper from his book 'Global Tyranny...Step By Step' writes:
"In other words, the world order Insiders were faced with the following conundrum: How do we make the Soviets menacing enough to convince Americans that world government is the only answer because confrontation is untenable (nuclear annihilation/MAD); but, at the same time, not make the Soviets so menacing that Americans would decide to fight rather than become subject to communist tyrants." And so communism was mellowed with the "collapse" of Soviet Russia, and other "enemies" (non-state/state terrorism, enviromentalism/global warming) were generated in their place to serve their quest for global control. And now we see their plan unfolding before our eyes, regional government constructs, e.g. EU, AU, the Russian Union (CIS), and the other regional blocs forming as I write (North American Union, South American Union, Middle East Union, South Asian Union, Central Asian Union, East Asian Union, and the Asian Pacific Union). I would say the Anglo-American power elite, those internationalists who run the executive branch and US foreign policy and who have tremendous influence in Congress are well on their way to achieving their ends.
2) The second primary reason for establishing their communist "antithesis" in the world order politics dialectic is to also provide the pretext for a proto-totalitarian system on our shores with massive government inflationary spending that the US may, according to the late H. Rowan Gaither, former president of the Ford Foundation "...make every effort to so alter life in the US as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."
3) The third reason was to create the precedent for US troops to fight solely under the authority and control of the United Nations and its regional subsidiaries,i.e. NATO,SEATO -now defunct. And so now the US sends troops around the world to enforce UN resolutions for the embryonic, world government-in-waiting United Nations.
Communism remains a real danger to those who live or have lived under its yoke, but communism, without which the Western power elite who control the US government would not have the means to erect their forthcoming new Tower of Babel, was their creation. Without a dark sinister enemy like communism, the initial drive toward world government could not get underway.
Moreover, the spittle has been wiped from my monitor. Thank you.
Another good anthem...
Post a Comment