01-07-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|
|
RE: Jake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by nawbut";p="
...the 'special' relationship.
And yes, they didnt help you invade a few countries; guilty as charged.
|
Yeah, they had no problem with the communist takeover of south vietnam (1), no problem with the murderous baathist dictatorship (2) - exactly what I'm talking about.
Glad you agree. |
(1) Neither did the Vietnamese, elections were not held under pressure from US for fear of the majority Communists winning, as we see, doesn't seem like letting the Vietnamese chose their leaders in a democratic fashion to me.
Quote:
As dictated by the Geneva Accords of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The agreement stipulated that the two military zones, which were separated by a temporary demarcation line (which eventually became the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ), "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary," and specifically stated that elections would be held in July 1956. However, the Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections, encouraged by U.S. unwillingness to allow a certain communist victory in an all-Vietnam election. Questions were also raised about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North. The U.S.-supported government of South Vietnam justified its refusal to comply with the Geneva Accords by virtue of the fact it had not signed them.
Source
|
(2) And the US did? The US only seems to considers a country as a dictatorship if it is against their interests.
Quote:
[Coup by Baathists in Iraq...]
This correspondence shows that even in February of 1963, US officials were aware that they might be accused of fostering the coup, and wanted to take steps to avoid being seen as its instigator. But they also were obviously relieved that Qasim was gone, and were positively eager to work with the Baath. This optimism and eagerness seems counter-intuitive, unless they just preferred anyone at all to Qasim, but I personally think that it came of their conviction that the Baath would be anti-Communist in a way that Qasim never was.
Source
|
Quote:
...
Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.
Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.
"This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability ....
"As in Iran in '53, it was mostly American money and even American involvement on the ground," says Morris, referring to a U.S.-backed coup that brought the return of the shah to neighbouring Iran.
Kassem, who had allowed communists to hold positions of responsibility in his government, was machine-gunned to death. And the country wound up in the hands of the Baath party.
...
Source
|
|