# Dictators supported by the US



## Bones (Jan 30, 2011)

*Africa*
MOBUTU SESE SEKO 
Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
President/Dictator of Somalia 1969-1991
GEN. IBRAHIM BABANGIDA 
Military Dictator/President of Nigeria 1985-1993
GEN. SANI ABACHA 
Dictator of Nigeria 1993-1998
HASTINGS KAMUZU BANDA
Dictator of Malawi 1966-1994
LAURENT-DÉSIRÉ KABILA 
President/Dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1997-2001
GNASSINGBE ETIENNE EYADEMA
http://tinfoilpalace.eamped.com/2011/01/29/dictators-supported-by-the-us/ View the rest at the link


----------



## ekrem (Jan 30, 2011)

Turgut Özal was no dictator.

Turgut Özal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## hjmick (Jan 30, 2011)

And...


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 30, 2011)

Yes we have a long history of supporting democracy in the world.


----------



## Tank (Jan 30, 2011)

Some places in the world, dictators is all they got.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 30, 2011)

Where did you "copy-paste" this from? You didn't give a link and I want to check the source.


----------



## Bones (Jan 30, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Where did you "copy-paste" this from? You didn't give a link and I want to check the source.


From another forum.   If you wish, check each one with wikipedia or an encyclopedia.  As ekrem already pointed out, the list is not flawless however it does reveal America's ironic quest of spreading freedom through the support of dictators and despots.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 30, 2011)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
> MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
> ...



and your point is?....assuming you have one...


----------



## hjmick (Jan 30, 2011)

Trajan said:


> and your point is?....assuming you have one...



On top of his head...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2011)

I think you could cull the list a bit. I think some of those people that US didn't really give much a rat's arse about. There are a few it openly supports(ed) for sure...


----------



## JBeukema (Jan 31, 2011)

*Dept. of AgitProp
Rejected*
​

We regret to inform you that your submission has been rejected. It is  the opinion of the Department that your submission lacks sufficient  credibility and is in need of further refinement. An example  acceptable-grade AgitProp for your cause might be provided for you to  study, at the discretion of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda.

Sincerely,

James T. Beukema
Minister of AgitProp


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

DR. GETULIO VARGAS, he committed suicide, are you saying we supported this or caused this, anyhow, many of the people wish they could go back to the Military dictatorship, they say things were better then.


----------



## strollingbones (Jan 31, 2011)

i think the point is.....the us has long adopted being anti revolutionary....supporting an est. ruler over democracy....after all rebellion threatens stability


----------



## editec (Jan 31, 2011)

I do NOT object when the USA finds that a nation is run by a tyrant and they must do business with them.

What I DO OBJECT TO is when the USA topples a legitimate government and then replaces it with our own puppet regime because the current government is not willing to go along with whatever our coprporate masters want from that nation.

And THAT has happened many time in our lifetimes, folks.

Installing the Shah of IRAN back in the early 50's is a stellar example.

Mubarak, is, I think, NOT an example of that.  He attained power (as far as I know) without assisteance from our CIA, so as far as us having supported him?

Well, I think we really had no choice in that regard.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

editec said:


> I do NOT object when the USA finds that a nation is run by a tyrant and they must do business with them.
> 
> What I DO OBJECT TO is when the USA topples a legitimate government and then replaces it with our own puppet regime because the current government is not willing to go along with whatever our coprporate masters want from that nation.
> 
> ...



Yet the Shah was the Legit ruler, you would not support your own agreements with rulers of a country or do you forget the role Iran played in World War II and that was the Shah's father. 

It has been trbal rule in the Middle East for centuries, outside of the Ottomans of course but still at the local level the tribes ruled, or a family ruled from a particular city. 

The Shah is the legit ruler, not the religous nuts that still stone to death teenage girls for having sex.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2011)

strollingbones said:


> i think the point is.....the us has long adopted being anti revolutionary....supporting an est. ruler over democracy....after all rebellion threatens stability



sure...but I want to hear Bones ( none strolling type)  make the case. His list is, well, epically conflated to the max, and I am being kind.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 31, 2011)

SADDAM HUSSEIN
Dictator of Iraq 1969 (1979)-2003

Your dates are a bit off, I'm pretty sure the US stopped supporting Saddam after the first Gulf War in 1991.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> SADDAM HUSSEIN
> Dictator of Iraq 1969 (1979)-2003
> 
> Your dates are a bit off, I'm pretty sure the US stopped supporting Saddam after the first Gulf War in 1991.



The U.S. never supported Saddam, having a little trade and trying to have diplomatic relations is much different than support. Trying to win the cold war and keep control of the region are good Foreign Policy goals.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 31, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I do NOT object when the USA finds that a nation is run by a tyrant and they must do business with them.
> ...



No he wasn't or isn't. The Brits and Americans installed him.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 31, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > SADDAM HUSSEIN
> ...



The US helped install Hussein. But it was a rocky road after that.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
> MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
> ...










Dictators supported by the US? 

You do realize that you forgot to add:

US Politicians
US Government officials 
US Unions


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Actually you have to seperate "Americans" from the Brits if you wish to begin with "Iraqi" history, which begins in the early 1900's after we freed there asses from the destruction of the Ottomans. Time to stand up and not be so shallow in our thinking.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Please, I would love to hear how, you going to start in the 1930's when Iraq became a nation, which of course makes Iraq a young nation, less then a hundred years old. I wonder why we did not dust off that old Constitution of Iraq's when we liberated the people of the murderous dictator Saddam. It was a great Constitution.


----------



## Bones (Jan 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > i think the point is.....the us has long adopted being anti revolutionary....supporting an est. ruler over democracy....after all rebellion threatens stability
> ...


This is what I said on the previous page:

_If you wish, check each one with wikipedia or an encyclopedia. As ekrem already pointed out, the list is not flawless however it does reveal America's ironic quest of spreading freedom through the support of dictators and despots._

Again, I'm sure there are some factual errors in the list however it's true that the United States has supported despotic monsters in the course of its history.  Additionally, the U.S. has overthrown democratically elected leaders and installed their own puppets.  The reason I created this thread was to dispel the "The United States is/was a benevolent world influence" myth.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jan 31, 2011)

I know the US Backed Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war but how exactly did they "install" him into power? I thought Saddam made that move by himself.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



Your completely full of shit in your characterization of the United States, if you had even a tiny bit of education of what you speak you would post something specific instead of a cut and paste with the comment, "just check wikipedia".

Gee, why not just state the only source you will allow is Howard Zinn or Norm Chomsky, obviously you most likely are ignorant to even the source of your material so allow me to help you, the only respectable historian in your view that is acceptable is Chomsky or Zinn, correct.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 31, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > SADDAM HUSSEIN
> ...





The United States supported Iraq during the IranIraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permittedand frequently encouragedthe flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam



Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:


A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz. 
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns. 
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse." 
U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests. 
The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims." 
Go to the Electronic Briefing Book

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - Press Release


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997



I got to reduce you post to one subject at a time, Mobutu, I see him as a product at best of Belguim, further to reiterate my last post of the pro-marxist chomsky and zinn, Mobutu fought against communism, two historical facts, impossible to refute, hence everything you posted was bullshit.

So far I have presented fact on Vargas, which went ignored, and now Mobutu.

Support your propaganda, you can not. 

This is as much a war against Chomsky and Zinn's hatred and lies as it is against Liberals.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



The whole list is flawed because your premise is flawed. I picked a leader in the middle of the pact as well as the very first leader you cut and pasted, I see you ignored your ignorant of Vargas, now your ignorant of Belguim and the Congo, you seem to be totally ignorant of history which explains much.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
> MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
> ...



I would like the link to where you got this information, as the rules dictate, how about the link


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Okay, I will not argue one point, you win, that puts us about tenth in the line of countries that "supported" Saddam, now in order to show that the USA supported a nut job you have to prove that the defeat of Iran was not in our best interest or the regions best interest.

Of course how about a little background on Iran as well, as you know it was a religous war, the Iran-Iraq war, correct. Careful, I am setting you and everyone else up, this is the bait, Iran has a historic religous claim to Iraq and until this is resolved there will never be peace.

Anyhow, at best the USA supported Saddam with less than 5% of his needs in the war against Iran, if you want to call that full support and ignore Russia and France, I am here to point that out.


----------



## editec (Jan 31, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I do NOT object when the USA finds that a nation is run by a tyrant and they must do business with them.
> ...


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Great, you read the manual, can you state what that means, put it in perspective. 

As a percentage of the Military in terms of dollars, what is that 1%, at best. Further, as we know, Saddam had no WMD's, he used all that fertilizer, for fertilizer. Some Democrats made an accounting of dual use chemicals in the the 1990's, some people even went to jail selling stuff to Iraq they were not allowed to, so I am fully aware to what extent, "we supported Saddam". 

I say Russia gave by far the most support followed by France and China, Brazil comes to mind, Italy, Belgium, Germany, England, I bet there are others, this is just off the cuff. The United States, less that one percent of the military budget was supported by the USA either directly or indirectly.

Iraq - DEFENSE



> This growth in the manpower and equipment inventories of the Iraqi armed forces was facilitated by Iraq's capacity to pay for a large standing army and was occasioned by Iraq's need to fight a war with Iran, a determined and much larger neighbor. Whereas in 1978 active-duty military personnel numbered less than 200,000, and the military was equipped with some of the most sophisticated weaponry of the Soviet military arsenal, by 1987 the quality of offensive weapons had improved dramatically, and the number of new under arms had increased almost fourfold (see <"appendix.htm#table10">table 10, Appendix).
> 
> Army equipment inventories increased significantly during the mid-1980s. Whereas in 1977 the army possessed approximately 2,400 tanks, including several hundred T-62 models, in 1987 the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that Iraq deployed about 4,500 tanks, including advanced versions of the T72 . Other army equipment included about 4,000 armored vehicles, more than 3,000 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, a number of FROG-7 and Scud-B surface-to-surface missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers, and an array of approximately 4,000 (some self-propelled) antiaircraft guns. The vast majority of the army's equipment inventory was of Soviet manufacture, although French and Brazilian equipment in particular continued to be acquired in Iraq's ongoing attempt to diversify its sources of armaments (see <"appendix.htm#table11">table 11, Appendix). This mammoth arsenal gave Iraq a clear-cut advantage over Iran in 1987. Iraq had an advantage of more than four to one in tanks (4,500 to 1,000); four to one in armored vehicles (4,000 to 1,000); and two to one in artillery and antiaircraft pieces (7,330 to 3,000). Despite this quantitative and qualitative superiority, the Iraqi army by the end of 1987 had not risked its strength in a final and decisive battle to win the war.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 31, 2011)

editec said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Douger (Jan 31, 2011)

hjmick said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > and your point is?....assuming you have one...
> ...


You're from fucking Albuquerque 
Shouldn't you have a Mexican with a stocking cap as your avatar ?
Post a pic of your yard, murkin.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 31, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



*Perhaps you should speak to this fellow*

Ron Paul on Iran, Mossadegh, War, Blowback and Middle East "Democracy"


----------



## Mark LaRochelle (Jan 31, 2011)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
> MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
> ...



They forgot Stalin (during World War II): $2.8 billion per year -- i.e., 1.7% of GDP (equivalent to $24.9 trillion today).


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 31, 2011)

ekrem said:


> Turgut Özal was no dictator.
> 
> Turgut Özal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Correct.  And I kind of liked Özal.  He was a good President AND a good PM.

I also liked Tansu Çiller, the first woman PM.  She did a great job fighting the PKK.


----------



## hjmick (Jan 31, 2011)

Douger said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Actually, I've only lived in Albuquerque for a year, the last thirty-five were spent in Southern California. Prior to that it ws Texas and Ohio. As for my avatar, I prefer the parrot. And my yard, seeing as I live in the desert and water is scarce, is cactus and rock. Nothing worthy of a photograph.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Bones said:
> ...



Why should I speak to "this guy", Old Crock, you should post some opinion, commentary, or fact, not a link, today I am not following your links, I wish to be a bit more serious and have not the time to play.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 1, 2011)

> America's ironic quest to spread Freedom



That is a nice way to describe the refugees huddled together in the only sanctuary we found, the USA. So demanding that Women not be stoned to death is an "Ironic Quest".

Supporting China after the Japanese soldiers raped and murdered 10 year old virgins during World War II is an "Ironic Quest". 

Sounds like the hate from Chomsky and Zinn, it is definitely not history.

Either way, I have challenged the list but I see no defense, no rebuttal, no support. So far I got one person putting words into my mouth at the same time they hope to close the chapter on a part of history in which our government did great work on behalf of the Persion people of Iran. 

It is telling when people use two sentences to describe a period of history that lasted over a decade. 

How about stating what our foriegn policy actually is and how it was applied, can any here do that. Can anyone provide an analysis of the application to of our foreign policy and explain if it was fair and just.

Either way, there are a few directions the world took, one was Marxism, which is a complete failure, not just economically but on a human level Marxism resulted in brutal rape and murder of millions of people, on top of that Marxism resulted in famine, starvation, death of tens of millions of people. 

Iran, better off Marxist or of a government that the people determined was best. A choice between a radical religous nut  who had a serious problem with women seen in public or the Shah. 

Iran, support our freinds or turn our backs as Islam turns back the modernizaton and education of an entire society.

Anyhow, I know have two or three people putting words in my post that is not there so that is obviously the starting point, let us clarify that so far, two folks have decided not to address two points I have thus made, two folks have stated I said something I did not. So let us begin there, its obvious that you two folks think this particular event proves something, I assert your wrong. 

So make your case, show where I stated what you attribute to me and at least provide a bit of something, simple commentary paraphrasing what you believe is good enough for me, so quote my original comment and provide the commentary or paraphrase your education in a post. 

If you do not want to do that I guess I am here for a simple tit for tat insult debate.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 1, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



Um..



> BAATH PARTY COMES TO POWER
> On February 8, 1963, the Baath Party, in collaboration with a few army officers, staged a coup détat and killed Qassem. Hussein immediately left Cairo and arrived in Baghdad, where he became a midlevel internal security official. This was also when he married his maternal cousin, Sajidah Khayr Allah Tilfah. Qassems downfall was apparently not the exclusive result of his mistake of denying the Communists weapons, nor of the Baath Partys talent for staging coups. According to reliable sources, the coup was supported, if not actually engineered, by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Starting in 1959, the CIA identified Qassem as a sworn enemy of the United States and a staunch ally of the Soviet Union.
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Saddam_Hussein.aspx



I've also read that after the botched assassination attempt on Qassem, the CIA helped Hussein when he was on the mend.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Why not start at the begining and work your way forward, that way we can see that you can see the exact history of what you speak.

According to what you just posted, it states that the CIA identified an enemy of the USA. That is there job correct, you see that as wrong or evil, to identify potential threats. The coup was supported by the CIA, really, how, your just making the claim its supported, you have not shown that the CIA did a thing, even the person you quote is clear that they are just speculating. The author explicitely does not state that the CIA engineered the Baath parties rise to power.

You folks use the word "support" loosely, as loose as when a coup happens, if we do nothing except state our policy of non-interference and continue diplomatic relations with the new leadership, this is called "support". 



> According to reliable sources, the coup was supported, if not actually engineered, by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).



Sallow, I am assuming the only relevant fact from your link you posted, if there is more I need know of your link you should post it or add a bit of your own commentary. 

Iraq is one country we never supported nor had good diplomatic relations with, no matter who the leader was. Of course the world should of supported the original leader, a decndant of the Sherif of Mecca, I think it was a son of the Sherif, "installed" strictly by the British. Iraq is if anything, created by the British, fault us for doing as we must in light of the difficulty of rebuilding and educating the Middle East after centuries of neglect and backwardness.

I sit here in Brazil and honestly believe the best thing that can happen anywhere in the world is to give the USA complete control, not the current dumb ass politicains but give us, the people the control. Our government is best for everyone in the world. 

Go to our supermarket and look at all that evil capitalism, how I dream of decent food at a cheap price as I struggle in Brazil, yesterday I suffered rotten eggs, our draconian custom of keeping eggs cold to keep them fresh is not tolerated in this country, as I walk to the market I see a few private individuals, with eggs out on the table, that is outside, in Brazil, during the summer, when its 105 degrees out. Two weeks ago I had a bloody egg, yesterday was the first time I could stomach using eggs, my 5 year old grabbed an egg and it literally broke in a rotten mess in his tiny hands. I am disgusted with the third world.

These idiots need a good dose of old fashion American Sanitation. You know when you shit in the third world you are to save the toilet paper and throw it in a waste basket instead of just dropping it into the toilet. 

Yet we are faulted as being bad for people in the third world, we are going to exploit them by selling White Cloud toilet paper and Mr. Clean toilet bowl cleaner. 

Our ideas of using three wires to bring safe electricity to a home is an Imperialistic idea we are attempting to force on others simply out of greed and profit.

How about all the disease we eliminated, imagine the horror for the mothers of children who they no longer fear going blind because that terrible Oil man, Rockefeller thought it was his God-ordered responsibility to spend his profits curing a terrible disease.

At best we have appeased the world due to political correctness.

"We must accept our responsibility, we are the worlds leader, not by our choice, but by the events of history that forced us into our position. This is our time, we must lead." I paraphrased a tiny bit, this was told to me as I walked along a road in Bahia Brazil, a man overheard me speaking English to my wife, he spoke some English, lived in the USA, he stated his biggest mistake in his life was coming back to Brazil, that his dream was to die in the USA. He stated we were screwing up, this was one month for 9/11. He told me that the USA has no choice but to lead the world, that we are the best for the world. 

After living the last four years in Brazil, minus some part time work in the USA and Spain, I can state that this place is a dirty dump that needs a bomb of Ammonia dropped on it. They sweep and I mean that literally yet its a dirty dump with unsanitary practices.

We have not asserted ourselves as we should, not once, we must demand, no more of this so called "support", those with the educaton are to lead.


----------



## jckryan (Feb 1, 2011)

The CIA has not had the best track record regarding new goverments in the past, yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror. From Vietnam to Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to Chile (Pinochet) and now Egypt (Mubarak). Revolts to putting our money on the wrong man . . . it has been brutal. Promises of a democracy that eventually turned into a dictatorship. From Egypt to any future uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa . . . thanks to Wikileaks/Twitter/Facebook . . . we better get secure intelligence that can be backed up on any moderates that we throw in our support for in the future and Egypt is our strongest/best chance.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 1, 2011)

jckryan said:


> The CIA has not had the best track record regarding new goverments in the past, yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror. From Vietnam to Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to Chile (Pinochet) and now Egypt (Mubarak). Revolts to putting our money on the wrong man . . . it has been brutal. Promises of a democracy that eventually turned into a dictatorship. From Egypt to any future uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa . . . thanks to Wikileaks/Twitter/Facebook . . . we better get secure intelligence that can be backed up on any moderates that we throw in our support for in the future and Egypt is our strongest/best chance.



Admitting all the failures and short comings of the CIA, the CIA has done the best that anybody could possibly do in the worst possible situations imaginable. From our inept government politicians and workers to the most ignornant people on the planet we are damned lucky the CIA has been effective as it has been.


----------



## jckryan (Feb 1, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> jckryan said:
> 
> 
> > The CIA has not had the best track record regarding new goverments in the past, yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror. From Vietnam to Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to Chile (Pinochet) and now Egypt (Mubarak). Revolts to putting our money on the wrong man . . . it has been brutal. Promises of a democracy that eventually turned into a dictatorship. From Egypt to any future uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa . . . thanks to Wikileaks/Twitter/Facebook . . . we better get secure intelligence that can be backed up on any moderates that we throw in our support for in the future and Egypt is our strongest/best chance.
> ...




_*" . . . yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror". *_I'm glad I'm not one of them most ignornant people on the planet.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 17, 2011)

jckryan said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > jckryan said:
> ...



Would you know if your ignorant, I say no, take your spelling of "goverment", should of at least looked at your own post first, dumb ass.


----------



## waltky (Jun 8, 2013)

A couple of clear and present dangers...

*Peru's ex president Alberto Fujimori is denied pardon*
_7 June 2013 > Peru's President Ollanta Humala has rejected a request to pardon the jailed former leader Alberto Fujimori on humanitarian grounds._


> Mr Humala said the former president was "not terminally ill".  Mr Fujimori, who was in office between 1990 and 2000, is serving a 25-year sentence for human rights violations.  His family says his health is worsening and he could die in prison. Last month, a senior doctor said gastroduodenitis was destroying Mr Fujimori's stomach.  His family also says he has tongue cancer - a claim rejected by the government.
> 
> 'Best-kept prisoner'
> 
> ...



See also:

*Life sentence for Shining Path leader*
_Jun 7,`13  -- A Peruvian court has convicted a top leader of the Shining Path rebel group and sentenced him to life in prison without parole._


> Florindo Flores, better known as Comrade Artemio, was convicted of terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering. The three-judge court also ordered him to pay a $180 million fine. He is appealing Friday's conviction.
> 
> Artemio was captured in February 2012 in the Alta Huallaga Valley, a stronghold of the fanatical rebel group in the late 1980s and early 1990s before it was largely defeated.
> 
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 8, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> > *Africa*
> ...



uhh that proves that presidents like clinton,Nixon and many others are criminals who belong behind bars but get off scott free.amazing that the americasn sheople think watergate was the worst crime Nixon ever committed instead of realising he put a dictater in power who murdered millions. Presidents instead of wanting to nothing to do with them,cajol them and have lunch with them like clinton did having a jolly old good time with suharto.he learned from suharton how to murder people who got in his way.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 8, 2013)

Look at the "star wars bar scene" aka the UN Security Council sometime. We support them and invite them to live in the Big Apple, provide security and we feed their kids and all they do is demand extortion from the greatest Nation in the world and we comply. You don't have to make a list, it's easy. The US either through the UN or independently supports every stinking murdering emerging nation in Africa and we support all sides in the Mid-East mess.


----------



## Survivalist (Jun 24, 2013)

Joseph Stalin was the very best example of barbaric dictator very much loved and supported by a very socialist president (FDR).


----------



## whitehall (Jun 24, 2013)

How far do you want to go back? Hitler rose to power about the same time FDR was first elected and the US either supported or ignored the Nazi regime. Stalin was a good friend of FDR. The US helped Castro take over Cuba and then the crazy Kennedys spent a couple of years trying to assassinate him.


----------



## Survivalist (Jun 24, 2013)

whitehall said:


> How far do you want to go back? Hitler rose to power about the same time FDR was first elected and the US either supported or ignored the Nazi regime. Stalin was a good friend of FDR. The US helped Castro take over Cuba and then the crazy Kennedys spent a couple of years trying to assassinate him.



I'm just saying that FDR's alliance with Stalin was unexcusable.  Perhaps you are ignorant of Stalin's legion human rights abuses, genocide of millions, and so on.  If you do have some background in history, please tell me that prior to 1940, how was Stalin more righteous than Hitler?

Please include all the territories attacked and absorbed, number of enemies killed, number of leader's own people killed or imprisioned.

FDR was a great supporter of commuism.  He was giving the Soviet Union Lend Lease supplies months before the US entered WW2.

WW2 made the world safe for communism.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 29, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > How far do you want to go back? Hitler rose to power about the same time FDR was first elected and the US either supported or ignored the Nazi regime. Stalin was a good friend of FDR. The US helped Castro take over Cuba and then the crazy Kennedys spent a couple of years trying to assassinate him.
> ...


If FDR didn't side with Stalin then Stalin would have sided with Hitler and there would have been a total diffrent outcome from WW2.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 30, 2013)

jckryan said:


> The CIA has not had the best track record regarding new goverments in the past, yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror. From Vietnam to Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to Chile (Pinochet) and now Egypt (Mubarak). Revolts to putting our money on the wrong man . . . it has been brutal. Promises of a democracy that eventually turned into a dictatorship. From Egypt to any future uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa . . . thanks to Wikileaks/Twitter/Facebook . . . we better get secure intelligence that can be backed up on any moderates that we throw in our support for in the future and Egypt is our strongest/best chance.


Actually the CIA are the world's largest terrorists. They thank you for your support.


----------



## numan (Jul 1, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > WW2 made the world safe for communism.
> ...


Striving for World Domination _[by both the Axis and the Allies]_ makes for strange bedfellows.

*World War Two made the world safe for Totalitarianism.*

Thank you Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler and Stalin.

.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> jckryan said:
> 
> 
> > The CIA has not had the best track record regarding new goverments in the past, yet they're one of the most important pieces in the war against terror. From Vietnam to Cuba (Bay of Pigs) to Chile (Pinochet) and now Egypt (Mubarak). Revolts to putting our money on the wrong man . . . it has been brutal. Promises of a democracy that eventually turned into a dictatorship. From Egypt to any future uprisings in the Middle East/North Africa . . . thanks to Wikileaks/Twitter/Facebook . . . we better get secure intelligence that can be backed up on any moderates that we throw in our support for in the future and Egypt is our strongest/best chance.
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2013)

Tuatara said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



well considering our government is a police state now and a facist dictatership, all he did was delay that from happening and that doesnt excuse that bastard for cajoling a mass murderer and coddling up to him like he did.By doing that,he is just as much of a mass murderer as Hitler and Stalin associating with people like that.

thats the same as if I go out and hang around someone who i know kills people and gets away with his crimes all the time and I do nothing about it.donmt report him or nothing to the police.

that makes me no better a person than that the guy I am hanging out with the fact that I allow him to get away with it and do nothing about it.

liek Numan said,thank you Roosevelt,Hitler,Stalin,and Churchill.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 3, 2013)

Survivalist said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > How far do you want to go back? Hitler rose to power about the same time FDR was first elected and the US either supported or ignored the Nazi regime. Stalin was a good friend of FDR. The US helped Castro take over Cuba and then the crazy Kennedys spent a couple of years trying to assassinate him.
> ...



forget it,you'll never get anywhere with whitehall.as you can see,he is ignorant of the true facts of history.

He believes in EVERYTHING his corrupt american history classes and the media have told him his entire life.He actually still believes that oswald killed kennedy for example. He worships everything the LAMESTREAM media tells him everyday.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 8, 2013)

Bones said:


> *Africa*
> MOBUTU SESE SEKO
> Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997
> MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE
> ...



which one was it that Dick Nixon put into power?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 8, 2013)

mdn2000 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I do NOT object when the USA finds that a nation is run by a tyrant and they must do business with them.
> ...



So you are really saying that you know very little of ME history.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 8, 2013)

The krazy Kennedy brothers had a technique for rectifying mistakes like the US's support for Castro. They would just kill him. The krazy Kennedy's should have been locked up somewhere when they used the CIA as a personal army to raise, feed, equip and train a little army to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow the government. Wouldn't you know they would get cold feet at the last minute and abandon their little army at the Bay of Pigs. Lucky or the Kennedys that the mainstream media supported every stupid idea they ever came up with.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 25, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The krazy Kennedy brothers had a technique for rectifying mistakes like the US's support for Castro. They would just kill him. The krazy Kennedy's should have been locked up somewhere when they used the CIA as a personal army to raise, feed, equip and train a little army to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow the government. Wouldn't you know they would get cold feet at the last minute and abandon their little army at the Bay of Pigs. Lucky or the Kennedys that the mainstream media supported every stupid idea they ever came up with.



I notice how whitehall troll demonstrates his ignorance as always in the fact that the CIA lied to kenendy from day one about the bay of pigs invasion,that they told him they would not need air support and when he approached them during the invasion,he told them he knew they lied to him and asked them to tell the truth is they needed it and they lied to him again and said no which is why he wisely fired Allen Dulles and others of the CIA because of that.

I love how he also ignores how Nixon ran covrt CIA operations for them while vice president under eisenhower and had deep ties to them.and he is also stupid in the fact that Nixon put a dictater in power whu murdered millions.what a troll.


----------



## gipper (Oct 29, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The krazy Kennedy brothers had a technique for rectifying mistakes like the US's support for Castro. They would just kill him. The krazy Kennedy's should have been locked up somewhere when they used the CIA as a personal army to raise, feed, equip and train a little army to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow the government. Wouldn't you know they would get cold feet at the last minute and abandon their little army at the Bay of Pigs. Lucky or the Kennedys that the mainstream media supported every stupid idea they ever came up with.
> ...



Foreign interventions by American presidents has been going on for a long time and it is very much bipartisan.  Blaming one party for over a century of disastrous imperialist foreign policy, is a fool's errand.  

All these many foreign interventions have resulted in lots of killing and suffering...and an ever expanding governmental power and control, while enriching those within the military industrial complex...and many stinking corrupt politicians. 

One would think after all this failure, Americans would learn, but no.  Very much like the war on drugs or poverty...it just continues unabated.  The oligarchy loves it.  They know they can easily dupe the people over and over again.


----------

