Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

On 10/22/04 12:49 PM, "rua AT mindspring.com" <rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:

> Regading: "I can't talk to someone who is stupid enough to buy that."
> 
> 
> Z,
> 
> I have long been of the opinion that we invaded Iraq because of reasons 
> other
> than WMD.
> I believe I've posted numerous times that it was part of a global, long-term
> strategy,
> ala the game RISK.
> 
> I would hope our strategists think in terms of 20 years or more, although 
> the
> public may not have the appreciation for strategy to support that kind of 
> long
> term planning. Imagine how disastrous it would be for our strategists and
> sitting presidents to think in terms only of their term in office. You don't
> make history-changing invasions like this to find a few bombs. Our presence 
> in
> Korea has been stable for decades, same with the Berlin wall, and Cuba.
> Stability was kept, people and goverments were allowed to self-govern, and
> atrocities were curbed. Lincoln was widely opposed, as was Washington when
> they offered superior strategies. Lincoln had a better understanding and 
> sense
> of responsbility for the country than many of his detractors,
> and stood by his decision despite enormous loss of life as a percentage of 
> our
> population.
> 
> I enjoyed Dan's analysis, although I don't know if that is the driving cause
> or one of several. I do think his analysis underscores the maxim "countries
> don't have friends, they have interests". I think it is entirely within the
> realm of possibility, that Bush made choices that he thought protected
> American interests, and were good for the most citizens of the country. I
> don't believe Bush' goal was a short term snatch and grab, nor a 'you hit my
> father', nor any of the other trivial motivations thrown about. Bush is
> already rich; his friends are already rich; the best thing he can do for his
> family and his ego, is to affect a great change for the better in the world.
> If you want to disagree on tactics, fine, but I fail to see a believable
> motive for the conspiracy theories.

Why is it impossible to believe that the US government would overthrow a
government on behalf of US companies? It has happened before--look into the
CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala on
behalf of the United Fruit Company.

"It [United Fruit] began with enviable  connections to the Eisenhower
administration. Secretary of State John Foster  Dulles and his former New
York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had long  represented the company.
Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, had served on UFCO's  board of trustees. Ed
Whitman, the company's top public relations officer,  was the husband of Ann
Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary.  (Ed Whitman produced a
film, "Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas," that  pictured UFCO fighting in the
front trenches of the cold war.) The fruit  firm's success in linking the
taking of its lands to the evil of  international communism was later
described by one UFCO official as  "the Disney version of the episode." But
the company's efforts  paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists
who traveled to Guatemala  to learn United Fruit's side of the crisis, and
some of the most respected North American publications - including the New
York Times, New York  Herald Tribune, and New Leader - ran stories that
pleased the  company. A UFCO public relations official later observed that
his firm  helped condition North American readers to accept the State
Department's  version of the Arbenz regime as Communist-controlled and the
U.S.-planned  invasion as wholly Guatemalan." 

(Quoted  from Inevitable Revolutions - The United States in Central America
by  Walter La Feber, 2nd ed. 1993, pp. 120-121.

Sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it?

David