by Dreams End » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:36 am
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> how about someone attempting something resembling a refutation of the rationales provided for the Cold War?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Not a completely unreasonable request but we are coming from so far apart on this one that I can't imagine trying to get into THAT debate. <br><br>So I'll try to get us back to the original post. Even if the USSR was the real threat and the US were the good guys during the "cold war", does this justify the following things all done in the name of anti-communism:<br><br>1. Election fixing all over the place<br>2. Infiltration and manipulation of labor unions<br>3. Assassinations<br>4. Funding of secret armies and "low intensity" warfare<br>5. Support of death squads<br>6. Support of coups d'etat<br>7. Destabilization of economies<br>8. Cointelpro style operations to disrupt legal organizations <br><br>But here's the thing that has me so confused about your position. I could say that drug abuse is bad (alcohol being the worst, in my opinion, but that's another story.) And many people participate in the "war on drugs" sincerely, from SOME of the police who raid housing projects, to the jailers, to the judges sentencing nonviolent offenders to ridiculous jail terms to the people providing weapons and helicopters to "anti-drug" allies...surely within all of those there are some who believe that what they are doing is helpful.<br><br>SO WHAT? I'm not even going to bring up all of the reasons that it's clear the drug war is really a sham and that truly horrible things are being done in its name because you are so much more knowledgeable than I am in this area.<br><br>Now, does that fact that drug abuse is actually bad in any way justify ANY of this stuff? Of course not.<br><br>Robert, I think the biggest hole I see in your perspective is your understanding of WHY there IS a drug war. I think you see it as simply overzealous, morally up-tight folks on the one hand and, I suppose, some corruption on the other. <br><br>But it is clear to me that the drug war is used for a variety of reasons and that, at high enough levels, the bosses are quite aware of this. For example,<br><br>1. Social control. Who is in jail, primarily? What neighborhoods have been destroyed?<br><br>2. Cover for military aid and even military operations designed to help authoritarian regimes stamp out various revolutionary movements. I can guarantee you, from personal testimony I've heard myself from Marcos, that there are American helicopters in Mexico which are allegedly illegal to use for anything but the "drug war" which were instead being used against the Zapatistas. I've also been shown pictures of American "advisors" in Mexico during such operations. Multiply by I don't even know how many countries.<br><br>3. An alternate means of financing OTHER illegal operations that aren't even pretending to be about the "drug war". Funding of the contras comes to mind. Maybe Gary Webb did actually kill himself, but surely the attacks he endured suggest he wasn't far off the mark.<br><br>So if the drug war is being used to cover, justify and fund these OTHER operations, what's the actual motivation here? I don't think your point of view can even really account for it. Simply saying "imperialism" isn't enough...what, specifically, is the agenda?<br><br>Clearly, it is the removal of obstacles to US capital. Plain and simple. The IMF taketh and then the military aid keepeth away. I don't have to support every revolutionary movement in Central and South America to understand this and condemn it. <br><br>When leaders start threatening nationalization (Arbenz in Guatemala, I believe, made Dole Fruit quite nervous, and I believe ITT wasn't happy with Mr. Allende, and Chavez, of course, ALREADY has a nationalized oil industry, for three examples) or other actions which threaten capital, the hammer comes down. <br><br>The USSR is no more, and yet these activities continue. And, naturally, I know you don't believe Iraq was actually a threat. That doesn't prove the USSR was (a lengthy debate for another time) but it does show how that rationale can "rope people in" or, in the case of the democrats, allow them to SAY they were roped in when people catch on. It justifies nothing, however.<br><br>All right. That's foreign activities. Starroute's post was my exact feeling on the domestic front...and he and I both would argue that there's plenty of evidence of this but maybe making the whole case might be difficult in this forum. I think it would actually be a good thing to continue looking at this. Starroute, Gouda, I and others have, for the moment, gotten into looking into intel connections to all the New Age stuff, which has some similar purposes. It's about social control.<br><br>And really, your own posts reflects the zeitgeist under which these activities take place. Conspiracy? Oh, there's a big one, but much of what we are talking about is simply activities that the upper classes take for granted as their proper function. Give the "reasonable" groups access to funding, Congress and media and ignore the other, overly radical groups. <br> <br><br>If things get out of hand with those "bad" groups...there are some other folks to take care of that. Infiltration, disruption, assassination...etc. <br><br>Having experienced 2 out of 3 of the above myself, I know this stuff still goes on...the end of the USSR didn't put a dent in it. Actually, things are worse now...I'm not sure we could have invaded Iraq with a full-strength USSR in the picture, whatever your opinion of them. <br><br>Now, as starroute points out, we have more overt kidnapping, torture and assassination programs. Since the death of the USSR we have destroyed Iraq militarily and killed hundreds of thousands through sanctions. And, everyone knows you are as big an opponent of both gulf wars as the rest of us are.<br><br>Without an underlying understanding of what the US and England and other western powers seek, none of this makes much sense. What they seek is to keep the world safe for capital, pure and simple. You can call it imperialism, but what do you think imperialism is? What good is an empire if you aren't GETTING stuff out of it? <br><br>So, since the topic is intel agencies' domestic dirty tricks to "manage" popular domestic movements, I guess the burden really is on you to show how your opinions of the USSR justify these activities. I see the dirty wars abroad and dirty tricks at home as all tactics in the global fight to protect capital. Your analysis doesn't really offer an underlying motive, especially now that the USSR is no more. <p></p><i></i>