posted July 27, 2006 08:24 PM              

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html#anchor1469361

.........

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.

**German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
**British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
**Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
**Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
**Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
**U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

posted July 27, 2006 08:41 PM            

I almost attended the school, back when I was bordering on being an enviro-nazi. I was going to major in Environmental Studies. The only reason I bring it up is that I'm extremely familiar with this institution.

Anywho, while the guy has some common sense sentiments at the end, "Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them", he unfortunately frames it with the typical overtly implied, "The US is bad, we should form a committee and talk about how it all makes us feel to be such bad people as a nation and what we can do to capitulate to those who don't like us so they'll stop being mean to us".

posted July 27, 2006 08:54 PM            

What else would you expect from the pro-terrorist, Anti-American DayDreamer.

I guess her name says it all..... always off in lala land thinking there are NO Muslim extremists, there are no terrorists...it is all a dream.

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted July 27, 2006 09:04 PM              

You are the terrorist and warmonger.

You enter other countries uninvited, interfere, destroy and kill their people.

posted July 27, 2006 09:08 PM            

What about your cockroach terrorists scurrying to the hills of other countries, murdering townspeople? Those Islamic extremists move like some kind of pathogenic bacteria from country to country infecting people like the plague.

Think of America as the WHO kindly doctor sent in to wipe out Yersinia pestis (the terrorists) and innoculate the citizens.

Sometimes people die from the vaccine, sometimes the disease kills them..

But in the end, the disease is gone, the strongest survive and we move on to cure another country of the plague (that again would be your terrorist brothers and sisters... )

All in good time... we'll have them all nicely vaccinated

posted July 27, 2006 09:15 PM            

3rd grade terrorist. Tell your daddy not to let you use the computer again until you can stop mirroring what someone else says. It makes you look as stupid as you most likely are.

posted July 27, 2006 09:28 PM              

since coming to this site, and reading the posts of the far right like you and others, I have become even more convinced you are bigger warmongers and terrorists. The biggest threat to security and peace in this world.

posted July 27, 2006 09:30 PM              

is should be

posted July 27, 2006 10:15 PM            

quote:

---

It was quickly dismantled - like most of your posts.

---

Actually, the previous thread of the same title wasn't quickly dismantled until I stepped in to do it for those on the Right who couldn't do it for themselves.

You should look it up, though. It's good for a laugh. Heck, I'll look it up. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001880.html