Stumble This | You should also watch “[documentary] What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy...” |
Comments 
who voted for this video
pho3n1x
- therealblankman
- Farhad2000
- Gervaise
- dotdude
- mysdrial
- dag
- daphne
- pass.the.grog.
- sfjocko
- randeepsamra
- Dr.Conspiracy
- ant
- nyenyec
- firedoggod
- gwaan
- v1k1n6
Propagandhi - U.S. Foreign Policy: A Study In Hypocrisy Related Videos
[documentary] What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy... |  Seymour Hersh on American foreign policy |  Cat and Dog demonstrate American Foreign Policy |
more posts by pho3n1x
|
Featured Member Comment
Escaped chimp disarms zookeeper - “So how did they not think of the banana in the first place?” read more by syncron
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
When protecting our national interests, it's been easier over the decades for the USA to deal with monarchs and dictators than shaky democracies. That isn't always ethical or right, but it's not a secret, and gov agents don't show up at your door to take you away for saying it.
Are we to believe that Communist governments, responsible for the murder of 100 million people around the globe so far--aren't also trying to subvert fledgling democracies?
Historically the USA hasn't lived up to the utopian fanatasies of socialist hippies. Big deal.
The Blame America First crowd needs new material.
You don't realize that such activites by the goverment is actually holding you, the average citizen down. How exactly? Well think about the gap between the rich and the poor in America, it's so large now that there is a reduction in the number of people who are middle class.
Now let's think back about all the military incursions that America has been involved in and pick a few cases to look at. We'll look at Nicaragua, this starts back with Theodore Roosevelt who extends the existing Monroe Doctrine in 1904 allowing the US to interfe in a latin american state guilty of "chronic wrong doing" (I mean much more vague can this be). The Monroe doctrine comes to define america's policy in Latin America.
US Marines land in Nicaragua in 1909, after a similar pattern of interventions in Cuba (1898), Honduras (1905) and Panama (1908). Nicaragua becomes a US protectorate there after.
In 1926, Augusto Cesar Sandino lunaches a successful guerilla war against US marines and the Nicaraguan National Guard under Anastasio Somoza Garcia. The Sandinista rebels are a pro-liberal group that insists on a redistribution of land to the peasantry, which is violented opposed by Somoza. Sandino was murdered by the National Guard in 1934, Somoza who is a US ally then runs a brutual dictatorship until 1979 when the Somoza Dynasty is overthrown by Sandinista National Liberational Front. Jimmy Carter at the time tried desperately to prop up Somoza's regime until the bitter end. Nicaragua after years of oppressive rule lay in ruins with 40,000 to 50,0000 killed.
When the Sandinistas finally come into power, everything is done to demonize them with accusations of undemocratic policies, genocide, drug-trafficking. This is while US media remains silent on the documented facts of Sandinistas remarkable reforms. Oxfam, with it's experience of working in over 76 developing nations finds the Nicaraguan goverment to be exceptional in it's commitment to addressing inequities in land ownership, in extending health, educational and agricultural services to poor peasent families.
Until 1989, the US goverment pursues a policy of destabilization by suppyling an insurgent army of 'Contras' in Nicaragua.
The question is "Why would the US goverment feel threatened by socialism in a smaller, weaker country such as Nicaragua"?
This comes down to the Rotten Apple theory. If a tiny impoverished nation with miniuscle resources can begin to do something for it's own population others might ask "Why not us?". The weaker and less economically endowned the nation the greater the example that can be set. The rot could spread, threatening regions of real concern to the rulers of the world.
Same thing with Iran, which in the late 40s grew tired of it's resources being plucked by corporations. The CIA however interevened, a coup occured and the Shah of Iran came into power. This of course back fired a few years later with the extreme Islamic goverment emerging. The US goverment then makes links with Iraq, supporting Iraqi military operations into Iran, while selling arms to both sides. This of course back fires with the usage of Chemical and Biological weapons by Saddam. The US goverment distances itself.
1991, Iraq invades Kuwait. For a long time the international community does not do much other then decry the situation. However intelligence arrives saying that Saddam's forces are massing on the western border of Kuwait with Saudia Arabia. The american administration deems it too risky to allow Saddam to possbily enter Saudia Arabia. And the rest is history. But no wait. It's not all over yet. Suddenly only 100 KM away from Baghdad, coalition forces are pulled back, the regime in Iraq is unchanged, no pressure is placed on the regime to allow free elections to occur.
During the same time period (70s to 90s), the USSR intervenes in Afghanistan, the CIA sponsors the mujahedin and Osama Bin Laden with roughly a billion dollars in order to destabilize the Soviet Union. Significantly they provided the mujahedin shoulder launched heat seekers that destroyed the air support of the russian helicopter fleet (responsible for supply, transportation and tactical attacks) which was vital to any successful campaign. Clearly the CIA was not doing it's job properly because at the time it was clear the Soviet Union was just disintergrating under the inefficiency of the soviet communist system. Osama Bin Laden joined the Taleban because they envisioned a muslim nation, and that was attacked by a secular power (USSR). With US forces staying put in Saudia Arabia indefinately after the Gulf War, Osama Bin Laden declares a jihad against occupying forces in the Islamic Holyland. The rest is thus history.
In conclusion. The policies the American goverment has undertaken have backfired, the consequences of which we see in 9/11, the Afghan war, the Iraq war, the uneasy situation with Iran. The CIA have a code word for this called "blow back". Intervention in Iranian affairs has created regime whose coming to power was mostly based on a hatred of America for doing what it did. This is the same regime that could be acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestine, supporting indirectly anti-american action in Iraq. The same people who would have greeted America as liberators in 1991, when it mattered, are not the same people America invades in 2003.
The same thing I mentioned about Nicaragua applies to East Timor. in 1975, the Indonesian Military Regime intervenes in the former colony of East Timor. What follows is a genocidal event. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassdor to the UN blocks any international reaction to the event. And I quote now "The United States wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about. The department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."
In 1991, A News Service study reveals that the US goverment supplied the Indonesian military with a list of names of promeint communist party leaders, mass organizations, labour federations and youth groups. The CIA station chief reffered to this as "a shooting list".
I could go on and on...
(Of course, the siftgods might have fixed the problem.)