Axis of Evil?

Éomer of Rohan

Dubya and his cohorts (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell - public enemies 2,3 and 4 respectively lol) have listed several countries as partaking in the Axis of Evil - Syria, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Afghanistan and North Korea - some saying this so called Axis extends to the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. The question is, are these not just countries which have resisted American domination?
Consider pre-war Britain - during the 1800's there were numerous skirmishes between British Naval Warships and US traders and gunboats. This was due to the formers dominance in world affairs and world trade.
Expand this consider every country that has opposed US aims. I will give selected examples.
During the 1918 - 1923 Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks fought for noble aims under Leon Trotsky. America sent aid to the white russians who wished to restore the tyrannical oppression of the working class and the economic dominance of an almost feudal system of land ownership.
In China, the Americans backed Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist rebels who fought Mao Tse Tung and the Red Army. Again it was because America had vested trade interests with the nationalists rather than the communists.
In Cuba, when the Batistan regime was ousted by Fidel Castro the Americans organised an invasion with support from the CIA (which as we know failed miserably) because they had vested stocks in the massive sugar industry in Cuba - which they subsequently destroyed via a naval blockade which is still in place.
In North Korea, the Americans (under UN auspices but actually having used devious treachery to oust the Russians from their UN seat) supported the South Koreans AGAINST the majority of the country who wanted a untied korea - it was the junta in power that refused to unite the country in order to maintain aid from the US and their own privileged positions.
We have exhausted Iraq - any one who wishes t make a point please do.
Look at the outrages in Panama when the nationalisation of the Panama canal was considered originally. Look at Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Colombia etc etc - all because of the Monroe Doctrine.
I consider it a fair point to make that the regimes in power in many of the countries in the Axis of Evil (and some I have mentioned are not in said axis and are only included to illustrate the point of US intolerance) have either been put there by the US or have been changed into horrible representations of what they set out to be by US sanctions/militarism/control of the UN/sabotage/assassination/political agitation et cetera.
Please someone take me up on this.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
In China, the Americans backed Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist rebels who fought Mao Tse Tung and the Red Army. Again it was because America had vested trade interests with the nationalists rather than the communists.

Just as the Russian supported the Northern Communists. The Americans, to a degree were merely staying with their ally against Japan. Both sides in China were as bad as each other.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
In North Korea, the Americans (under UN auspices but actually having used devious treachery to oust the Russians from their UN seat)

Do you have anything to back up this point?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
AGAINST the majority of the country who wanted a untied korea - it was the junta in power that refused to unite the country in order to maintain aid from the US and their own privileged positions.

Did anyone actually ask the Koreans?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

In China, the Americans backed Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist rebels who fought Mao Tse Tung and the Red Army. Again it was because America had vested trade interests with the nationalists rather than the communists.

The US backed both sides I believe. It was the influence of one particular diplomat in the region with senior support at the State Department that finally pushed US policy to a pro-Chiang stance. If I remember correctly, there were numerous US diplomats in the region who supported Mao, and ironically they were blamed on "losing" China when the US backed side lost the civil war. The issue also contributed to the rise of McCarthy and his sham denunciations of "Reds" and "fellow travellers".

Éomer, can you honestly describe anything that happened in Russia post-1917 as noble? Perhaps, noble intentions, but certainly not noble means.

sceptre

Axis of Evil my butt. Most of those countries have nothing in common; some aren't even talking to each other through diplomatic means. Call them "countries we feel are a threat to world peace/stability/<insert catchy sounding buzzword> if you like. "Axis of Evil" sounds like the kind of thing one would conjure up as a phrase to give the news a series of short soundbites without explaining yourself every time.

It's fair to say that if the Monroe Doctrine had held, many of these countries wouldn't be causing any sabre-rattling on either side. Mind you, we could make the same case for people speaking German in London.

DadaKopf

Wotcha mean "if the Monroe Doctrine held"? It's continued to be the underlying spirit behind US domestic/foreign policy (now two sides of the same coin) right into the present day. More than that, Bush is even giving off smell lines of the new Manifest Destiny. Damn Godboy.

sceptre

The specific part of the speech (which lead to the policy) that the US would not allow Europe to interfere in American (continent) affairs and that the US would not interfere in European affairs, holding its sphere of influence to the Western hemisphere.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/mondoc.html

The Monroe doctrine didn't cause the US to become embroiled in world affairs - if anything it precipitated the retreat of the US from world affairs until WW2 (with a brief break when they participated in WW1 but they compensated for this by not joining the league of Nations). Participation in Vietnam and Korea wasn't maintaining the Monroe doctrine - it was destroying it. The policy as implemented (and later expanded by Rooseveldt Mark 1) wasn't tantamount to the US giving itself a licence to act as world policeman but rather a statement that they had their sphere of influence and the European powers had theirs and never the twain should interfere with the other.

Éomer of Rohan

We remove ourselves from the point slightly - I do not mean the Axis of Evil in any manner other than that which describes a group of countries, not necessarily aligned with one another, but certainly united in hate/distrust etc of the US. The real question is twofold - did the US cause Sept 11 2001 themselves by their behaviour in international affairs and did the US, by mistrust of certain ideals, espionage, war, militarism, economic wars, UN sanctions among other tactics cause these nations to become estranged?
It is a sad thing to say that when I look at the world in terms of geopolitics, there is no 'good guy' - just a series of lesser evils and ultimately there will be a conflict between the greater and lesser evils - and I purport the US to be the greatest of these evils. I don't know how many agree with this.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The real question is twofold - did the US cause Sept 11 2001 themselves by their behaviour in international affairs and did the US

No, i think Sept 11 can only be blamed on Bin Laden and his associates. The Americans can be blamed for many other things, perhaps including naivety and narcissism, but not Sept 11. It's almost like saying someone was mugged because he wore expensive clothes.

Éomer of Rohan

It really boils down to the question as to whether or not you believe GWB's post sept 11th assertion that 'they hate our freedoms' - which I personally think is the greatest heap of rubbish ever heard by a nation.
In my opinion, despite my distaste for civilian casualties, the US brought it on themselves - first by the exploitation of the IMF and World Bank as I have laid out in other places in order to further US economic interests over the interests of other, now poverty stricken, countries; Second by the flagrant and unnacceptable differences between their treatment of certain countries - eg the treatment of Israel despite it's appalling human rights record on top of the special treatment accorded to regimes hated in the middle east by the people who are trampled underfoot (incl; Iraq (until 1990) Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Turkey) compared with the treatment of nearly innocent countries such as Cuba (whose Human Rights record is not that bad - www.amnesty.org) or even little Panama. It is this behaviour that caused the fundamentalists to gain ground in the way they did (and before someone says anything, being a true communist, I would be the first to admit that the Soviet Union behaved much the same, though never to the same extent - and never had the gall to pretend it was acting in the interests of human rights when they had been kicked of the UN committee for Human Rights).

Clintons Cat

Soviet Union behaved much the same, though never to the same extent -

Afganistan,Chechenia,Mozambique and Angola spring to mind,
then theres east germany,the baltic states and hungary
No regional superpower or state with regional aspirations has a clean record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations,Especially not the USSR/Russia

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Afganistan,Chechenia,Mozambique and Uganda spring to mind,
No regional superpower or state with regional aspirations has a clean record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations,Especially not the USSR/Russia

But aren't all interventions for the benefit of oppressed peoples? :rolleyes:

Didn't you we all just swallow very big slabs of salt?