That is absurd reasoning.

The cruise missile attack on Bin Laden was in retaliation to the bombing of the US embassies, which was carried out less than 2 weeks before. Clinton may have ordered the attack on that particular day for the reasons you give, but the attack would have inevitably happened at some point very close to that time - they obviously had to wait for a suitable opportunity when they thought they knew Bin Ladens location.

Given that the embassy bombings and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre happened before the attempted assassination of Bin Laden. it is not unreasonable to assume that 9/11 would have happened anyway and was therefore not a direct response to Clinton ordering the assassination attempt.

If you had said "red petrol engined cars consume large quantities of petrol" I might reasonably assume that there was something special about the term "red" in your statement.

In the following statement, the term "men" applies to both sexes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The Secretary of Defense (William Cohen) had previously presented several opportunities on various occasions to Clinton to take out bin Laden, but for some reason he only approved that one strike (the approval was within hours of the strike for timing reasons).

With regard to the 1993 bombing, that was 8 years prior and the "mastermind" of that bombing and several of the participants were in custody.

The 9/11 attacks took a couple of years to plan and execute since they had to get people into the US and to get them hands-on flight training and also flight manuals on the 767. So it seems to me that there could very well been a connection between 9/11 and the attempt on bin Laden's life by the US Cruise missile attack.

I recall that when a Cruise missile attack was launched on Qaddafi, he decided to cooperate with the West instead of keep fighting. A Cruise missile attack is a life-changing event due to the accuracy of the missile. The only way to survive it is to not be were they think you are at that particular time.

We, the USA through the CIA hired Osama bin Laden on the Mujaheddin, in Afghanistan to fight the Russians; and their apparent "success" was what gave bin Laden the inspiration to then take on the USA.

The USA supported Saddam Hussein, in trying to balance Iran, and we sold arms to both sides during their 8 year war.

Practically the first thing the CIA did after they were formed in the late 40's was to take out Mosaddegh as the democratically elected leader of Iran, and install the Shah; who was a cruel and violent dictator.

Have you looked into the Pinochet coup d'état in Chile? Or the whole El Salvador, or Nicaragua or Guatemala or Panama or Cuba situations?

The USA has been no angel, and we have acted without principles in many, many situations. The Vietnam War, and the Iraq War were based on lies. Yeah, I think that there are plenty of reasons for many people to take umbrage with the USA.

Shakes head in disbelief.




I suspect they really did mean men - as in male humans - because women were not considered to be the equal of men at that time, it took until 1920 for women to achieve suffrage in the USA.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned you are way too unreasonable to have a sensible discussion with so I'll not waste my time any longer.
Anyone reading this thread will no doubt draw their own conclusions about the validity of your interpretation of my comments.

I thought Cheney took out Mosaddegh?

R I G H T, let's be honest, there's nothing wrong in being frank.
Finally somebody wrote it.
Too many people forgot who BIN LADEN was in the past decades and which filthy methods have been used by CIA to avoid the rising to power of Communist Parties in the Cold War era (involving mafia and corrupted right parties, but that's another story and would require deep knowledge of now-too-boring-local-facts) in some European countries (either if it was a wrong or a good thing (I'm not judging it), it should have stayed out of their business, nobody should interfere with free countries affairs'. Everyone must bear the consequences of their actions, without any external interference, otherwise we'll have another 10 new Pinochet).

No, I think Dick "Imperial Presidency" Cheney has plenty to answer for, but that is not one of them.

I think the CIA should stick to actual intelligence gathering, and not carry out any policy actions. We would be a lot better off if they had.



Are you just going to ignore the rest of my post?

Just imagine how much better off we would be if we had not installed our puppet, the Shah in Iran, and instead let the democracy they had just started continue on it's course? We probably would not have had the Iranian hostages, and Iran/Contra (by the lovely President Reagan!) would never have come to pass, and Iran would not be up our nose now, and Israel would have one less thing to worry about, and the Iran/Iraq war might never have happened, and Saddam Hussein might never have taken power, and we might never have sold him arms, and he would not have gassed the Kurds (with the chemical weapons we sold him!) -- the list of what could have been better is a very long one.

And our military-industrial complex would have gone broke...

You are overstepping the bounds of fact when you say that "we installed our puppet". The Shah of Iran was the leader of Iran before Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh was assisted in his rise to power by the Communist Party and the KGB. The CIA had a couple of operatives in Iran who urged the Shah and his supporters (many in the merchant classes and the military) to overthrow the government which was moving toward socialism and moved to disolve parliment. The idea that the coup would not have happened without the CIA is only speculation for which no definitive evidence exists, and is contrary to the statements of those who lead the coup. I don't want to condone the CIA in this event, but its influence was grossly over-stated. There was wide support for the coup in the Iran military and merchant classes.

Probably, If President Carter had not been so friendly with the Shah of Iran, and allowed him to come to the US after he was deposed by the Islamic fundamentalists, then that also would have alleviated a lot of tension between the two governments. The new Iranian government specifically told Carter not to give the Shah haven in the US, and Carter did anyway, and the takeover of the US embassy happened shortly after that.

Listen: the CIA installed the Shah. The Shah was brutal -- he had many many many people killed, he enriched himself, and this went on for years and years -- and we could have backed off our support at any time.

But we did not, and that is why the Iranians were so upset at us. The Shah coming to the USA for medical reasons was just the last straw, that broke the camel's back...

What about our long support of Saddam Hussein? What about our CIA helping General Pinochet in Chile, and the brutal killings that then happened there? When would have been a good time to stop supporting those dictators? We supported Batista in Cuba, and the military leaders in Haiti -- the list is a long one...

In fact, the British played a larger role than the US in the Iranian coup to restore power to Shah. Shortly after Mossaddeq became PM, he nationalized the British oil business (ironically a consortia led by BP) and the British led an oil-boycott of Iran (that was supported by the US, but not related to the CIA).

Although the British and Americans definitely supported the coup (and the CIA and British intelligence provided organizational assistance), the coup was carried out by Iranians. There were many factions inside Iran and Mossaddeq's government was very unstable at the time. Mossaddeq had lost key support of some of those who helped elect him as PM (including the National Front and the communist Tudeh party in Iran). Most likely, Mossaddeq would have been deposed even without the limited CIA and British intelligence assistance, possibly by the communists if not the Shah.

Yes, Carter letting the Shah into the US after he was deposed was the last straw, but it was important, and much grief could have been spared if Carter would not have done that. By that time, Carter should have known that Iranians were very sensitive about US interference in the restoration of the Shah.

Okay, so we agree that the CIA helped mess things up.

Has the CIA ever taken an action that did *not* mess things up? (Other than "pure" intelligence reporting.)

Doesn't matter if it was the CIA or just overt actions by the US government. The post WWII era and the Cold War messed a lot things up all over the world as the US and USSR struggled for alliances with the newly emerging independent nations (coming out of the shadows of European colonialism that reigned for 300+ years).

The US made many mistakes during that time frame. and chief among them was the refusal to back Ho Chi Minh against the French at the close of WWII (Ho provided assistance to the US fighting Japan in WWII). Roosevelt and Truman turned Ho down when he asked for US support of his movement to gain independence from France.

Right -- I posit that almost every time we compromised on our "core" democratic principles, and went with something that we thought was pragmatic instead -- we got into deep yogurt.

how are you in any position to make that declaration?

we have no idea what would have happened if they had not been. we only know what has happened since they came to be.

and there are no principles in international relations. any political theory class will stress that as its first point.

Interesting article from NY Times:

More Killings in Venezuela Than in Iraq
CARACAS, Venezuela — Some here joke that they might be safer if they lived in Baghdad. The numbers bear them out.

In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000.

Even Mexico’s infamous drug war has claimed fewer lives.

Venezuelans have absorbed such grim statistics for years. Those with means have hidden their homes behind walls and hired foreign security experts to advise them on how to avoid kidnappings and killings. And rich and poor alike have resigned themselves to living with a murder rate that the opposition says remains low on the list of the government’s priorities.

Then a front-page photograph in a leading independent newspaper — and the government’s reaction — shocked the nation, and rekindled public debate over violent crime.

The photo in the paper, El Nacional, is unquestionably gory. It shows a dozen homicide victims strewn about the city’s largest morgue, just a sample of an unusually anarchic two-day stretch in this already perilous place.

While many Venezuelans saw the picture as a sober reminder of their vulnerability and a chance to effect change, the government took a different stand.

A court ordered the paper to stop publishing images of violence, as if that would quiet growing questions about why the government — despite proclaiming a revolution that heralds socialist values — has been unable to close the dangerous gap between rich and poor and make the country’s streets safer.

“Forget the hundreds of children who die from stray bullets, or the kids who go through the horror of seeing their parents or older siblings killed before their eyes,â€

All murders are bad, right? The illegal war in Iraq has killed several hundred thousand people. The number of killings in Sudan and Congo run into the millions.

Does that make war okay?