Notsaussure writes:...I tend to distrust the Americans when they get directly involved in helping other people run their own countries because, over the last 40-odd years, they’ve not really had a particularly brilliant track-record...
So far, so good. We’re at one. Notsaussure continues:
...No, to my mind it’s not so much that if you’re in the Bush administration’s sight’s it’s evidence you’re doing something right as that if the US government decides to help your country towards peace and freedom, things are likely to get even messier than they and it’s maybe time seriously to consider emigrating somewhere safer...
There were studies done on Kissinger [Bilderberger, CFR and one of Them] which tracked where he visited and what accrued about a month afterwards in those countries. Rwanda was an example, so was Vietnam. E. Howard Hunt died today and he was proud of his destabilizing role – openly. There is evidence that Cheney was the new Kissinger. There were allegations by a woman in a published book, Trance Formation of America, about his extra-curricular activities and interestingly, despite it’s direct challenge, she was never sued.
NATO went into a situation in Kosovo before it became a crisis, stayed while it became an atrocity, then suggested a solution. So yes, wherever the US or NATO go in the world, the moment the envoy flies in, it’s time for safety minded people to fly out.
Notsaussure puts it down to the type of leader the Americans demand but I think it’s important to identify what we mean by ‘the Americans’. If one means the American nation, then I’m not on board. If we mean the powers that be [and these can be seen in such films as Twilight’s Last Gleaming], then yes, these people are culpable to the fullest possible extent, as far as I can see.
Just to clarify about leaders, I was talking about the sort of local leaders who tend to find favour with the American government when they decide to intervene in a country's affairs. To my mind, it's wholly understandable that the luckless locals in countries that the US decides to rescue -- from quite genuine problems much of the time -- should have doubts about the State Department's and the CIA's selection policies.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is that, because US governments don't want to be seen at home, at least, as behaving like an imperial power, they tend to stick in someone whom they hope will look after their interests and keep the lid on things. All too often, he does this by using methods that they wouldn't tolerate in a Governor-General (or a viceroy if they were a monarchy).
You're basing the whole premise of the post (and the written item you refer to) in the fact that you believe these places would not have 'flared' up without American intervention. Since you cannot change the past to see a new future, these claims really can't stand up.
ReplyDelete