<div>Great post, Levi!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>US foreign policy continues to be focused rather blatantly on pursuing our national interests of military and</div>
<div>economic/ideological hegemony, rather than on even handed application of the ostensible idealistic goals of </div>
<div>democracy: opposing all dictatorships, consistently condemning and fighting "terror," and allowing the citizens </div>
<div>of nations to freely choose their own government, even if the government does not conform to the US </div>
<div>economic/ideological agenda. Consider that Iraq's current so called "sovereign" government is not free to make </div>
<div>decisions that oppose primary goals of US Middle East policy. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>When respect for democracy and human rights has not been favorable towards the US global power agenda, the </div>
<div>US has in some cases undermined democracy, supported human rights abusing dictators, and turned away from mass </div>
<div>atrocities, such as US ally Indonesia's slaughter in East Timor in the 1970s (info on this at URLs below):</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left"><a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/indonesia/index.html">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/indonesia/index.html</a></div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left"><a href="http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/lem02/chomsky1.html">http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/lem02/chomsky1.html</a></div>
<div align="left">-------------------- </div>
<div align="left">Saudi Arabia is a human rights abusing dictatorship, that treats women like cattle, suppress free speech</div>
<div align="left">and political organization, and engages in torture. Yet the US offers military aid and limits its condemnations </div>
<div align="left">of Saudi human rights abuses, with the US media rarely reporting on this situation.</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">A supporter of this "bias" might argue the Saudi dictatorship is better than </div>
<div align="left">what might replace it if there truly free elections, or if we invaded to overthrow the dictatorship, given that </div>
<div align="left">elections might install a more hard line Islamic regime, disrupt the oil supplies from the world's largest </div>
<div align="left">holder of high quality accessible oil, and jeopardize the close to a trillion dollars of investment from Saudi </div>
<div align="left">Arabia in the the US economy.</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">The US CIA supported coup against the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile, is a </div>
<div align="left">glaring and well documented example of the US undermining democracy, in complicity with Pinochet in </div>
<div align="left">horrendous and large scale human rights abuses. Info on the facts in this case at URL below:</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left"><a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/index.htm">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/index.htm</a></div>
<div align="left">-----------</div>
<div align="left">The US involvement in the military coup against Allende in Chile, and the unspeakable atrocities </div>
<div align="left">committed by the dictator Pinochet, is one of the darkest hours in US foreign policy. </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">At that time, the logic of the cold war dictated support for brutal dictators as long as they </div>
<div align="left">were on board with the US anti-Soviet power block. "Our" dictators were a means to contain a greater evil:</div>
<div align="left">allowing the Soviets to expand their global hegemony. Now the so called "war on terror" is a primary righteous </div>
<div align="left">ideological justification for US exercise of military power to pursue US global hegemony; yet it is clear that US </div>
<div align="left">government opposition to "terrorists" and "terror" is blatantly inconsistent, given the "terror" in Darfur, as one </div>
<div align="left">profound example. </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">It was well known that after the breakup of the Soviet Union a new boogieman would be required to mobilize the </div>
<div align="left">US citizenry and the US Congress to continue to pursue US global military economic/ideological hegemony. </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Consider the quite true point made in military think tank analysis presented by the Project for a New American </div>
<div align="left">Century (an effort supported by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and other notable Bush administration power </div>
<div align="left">brokers) that a "new Pearl Harbor" was needed to justify certain military actions undertaken since 9/11. This </div>
<div align="left">point was made prior to 9/11. They got their wish.</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Saddam was pure evil incarnate, and had to be overthrown (using lies about WMDs and ties to Bin Laden and </div>
<div align="left">Al Qaeda as scare tactics), and just happened to be sitting on the world's third largest reserves of high quality </div>
<div align="left">oil. Iraq shared a border with the biggest threat of an anti-US emerging Islamic superpower, Iran, while being </div>
<div align="left">situated to position the US military to protect the oil reserves of the whole Middle East, the largest easily accessible </div>
<div align="left">high quality oil resource in the world (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE). </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Meanwhile, the US has turned away from the horrors of genocide in the Darfur region in Sudan. </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">This inconsistency can be explained in part by the importance of Sudan to the US global game of </div>
<div align="left">economic/ideological hegemony, including the cozy economic relationship of the US with another human </div>
<div align="left">rights abusing dictatorship, China. China has oil interests in Sudan, and sells the Sudanese military hardware. </div>
<div align="left">Intervening in Darfur is not worth the damage to relations with China. And apart from this, is not a critical area for US </div>
<div align="left">intervention for resources or containment of other nations. Iraq was/is a much bigger prize. Also, the US military is </div>
<div align="left">now stretched thin with Iraq and Afghanistan and other commitments, so another military intervention would be difficult,</div>
<div align="left">even if the US wanted to stop the Darfur atrocities. Still, where is the consistent outrage from the US government? </div>
<div align="left">And the daily media reports on the Darfur atrocities?</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">How many citizens in the US know that the International Criminal Court just last month indicted Sudan's president </div>
<div align="left">Omar al-Bashir for war crimes?</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/sudan.warcrimes1">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/sudan.warcrimes1</a></div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Quote below from URL above:</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">The international criminal court (ICC) today filed 10 charges of war crimes against Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, </div>
<div align="left">for allegedly leading a campaign of murder, rape and mass deportation in Darfur.</div>
<div align="left">----------------</div>
<div align="left">We daily hear reports in our news media from Iraq and Afghanistan </div>
<div align="left">regarding attacks from the Iraq insurgents or the Taliban, portrayed as "terrorists." How often does our news </div>
<div align="left">media or the US government emphasize the atrocities in Darfur as a major example of "terrorism" committed by </div>
<div align="left">"terrorists?"</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Underneath the public relations propaganda of our government regarding the spread of democracy as an idealistic goal, </div>
<div align="left">and the condemnation of "terror" around the world, often lies Machiavellian calculations</div>
<div align="left">that marginalize condemnation of or direct action against some of the worst examples of "terrorism," "terrorists," and </div>
<div align="left">dictatorships, because these cases are not convenient for the pursuit of US military economic/ideological hegemony. </div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">The US public appears quite malleable to the cynical manipulations of the propaganda.</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left">Ted Moffett</div>
<div align="left"> </div>
<div align="left"><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/22/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Levi Cavener</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:lcavener@vandals.uidaho.edu" target="_blank">lcavener@vandals.uidaho.edu</a>> wrote:</span> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><span>
<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><br>"We, the United States, once held the moral high ground. Nations around <br> </div></span><pre><span>the world respected us, not for our military threat capabilities, but for <br>
our words and deeds."<br><br><br></span>Remind me just what nations have respected the United States because of our words and deeds and not the threat <br>of the United States bullying sovereign nations into getting our way. Perhaps the Japanese respect us because<br>
of the westernization process that we forced on them following their defeat in WWII, and not because they fear<br>losing entire cities by nuclear weapons. Maybe Cuba respects us because we attempted to bring democracy back<br>
to their nation after their revolution, and not because we try to assassinate <br>their leader or threaten nuclear annihilation when they don't play by our rules. Perhaps Nicaraguans enjoy<br>our government trying to undermine their sovereignty by financing US friendly contra groups in the hope a <br>
revolution would occur that would bring a more US friendly government - Well at least we know Iran certainly was <br>excited to buy weapons from us to use and pay for the Nicaraguan cause at the same time. Maybe Vietnam<br>
was excited to know that we don't respect their nation's sovereignty and are more than happy to <br>involve ourselves in foreign affairs that we are otherwise not involved in when we feel its appropriate. Maybe<br>
Mexico really wanted to give away a substantial part of its land to our country, and it had nothing to do with <br>our country using its military to get what we wanted. The Philippines of course realize now that they just<br>
weren't yet prepared to govern themselves after the Spanish American war and now respect us for looking <br>after their true interests. Surely Hawaiians appreciate and wanted to be part of<br>the United States - it had absolutely nothing to do US marines on the islands making sure US interests were<br>
protected. Maybe the Native American nations truly wanted to become a part of the USA and were not offended<br>at all by the US violating treaty after treaty that we signed with them or using our military and violence <br>
to insure compliance. And we all know how much the Middle East loves it when we involve ourselves...<br> Yes I guess now I can truly see why nations respect us for our words and deeds notbecause we like to use <br>our military to get what we want.<br>
<br><br>Please Don't get me wrong or take this out proportion- the US has done a lot of good in the world too. <br>But when it comes down to looking at the US track record it seems to me that the type of "respect" the <br>
US gets from the world's nations is the same type of "respect" I gave to bullies in school.</pre> <br>~Esto Perpetua<br> <br>Levi Cavener<br><br><br>
<hr>
> To: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>; <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com" target="_blank">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>; <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> From: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:49:01 +0000
<div><span><br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] being fair and even<br>> <br>> Roger -<br>> <br>> It is not so much what "they" would do, as much as it is what our allies <br>> (what few there are) would consider us to be.<br>
> <br>> We, the United States, once held the moral high ground. Nations around <br>> the world respected us, not for our military threat capabilities, but for <br>> our words and deeds. Nations eagerly supported us because we, as I had <br>
> learned in twenty years of military service, led by example.<br>> <br>> We said what we meant and we meant what we said. We walked the walk. <br>> Enforcing standards of duty, responsibility, and (above all else) <br>
> accountability was the yardstick we applied both at home and abroad. We <br>> placed diplomacy ahead of military response.<br>> <br>> Recently, the Department of Defense and Congress have attempted to regain <br>
> a small portion of that moral high ground that the current administration <br>> has forsaken. The Department of Defense defined acceptable human <br>> intelligence gathering techniques and delineated methods of unacceptable <br>
> torture. The Army accepted DoD's and established its own policies <br>> (policies adopted by Congress) concerning these definitions and <br>> unacceptable torture practices and published them in FM 2-22.3 (Human <br>
> Intelligence Collector Operations), a manual I have posted to the Viz on <br>> three prior occasions. This manual specifically identifies waterboarding <br>> as an unacceptable torture practice.<br>> <br>> If you cannot accept the letter of this policy, perhaps you can understand <br>
> its spirit.<br>> <br>> Seeya at Farmers' Market, Moscow.<br>> <br>> Tom Hansen<br>> Moscow, Idaho<br>> <br>> <br>> </span></div></div></blockquote></div>