Blogshine Sunday: US Greenlights, Funds Genocide

National Security Archives has some interesting material on Iraq as well. In short, Reagan dispatched Rumsfeld to Iraq to express the president’s full support for Saddam, and to try to get him to consider building an oil pipeline through Jordon.

This was done, even though the US already knew that Hussein was gassing Iranians with prohibited chemical weapons. The topic never came up with Saddam, but was discussed with his subordinates.

State and Defense reaction to the gassing? Dead Iranians by a bullet or illegal gas, both good - they could care less, and simply wanted the issue to be kept as quiet as possible as their biggest concern was not the use of prohibited chemical weapons, but the public pressure which would get in the way of another pet project they were operating - direct shipments of nuclear materials to Saddam’s / Iraq’s “nuclear establishments”.

The US was already shipping said materials to other addresses in Iraq, knowing full well that they’d be transhiped to said “nuclear establishments” - they just wanted to sidestep the middleman for some reason but were concerned about congressional oversight.

The National Security Archive is an amazing resource and should be made required reading for all American voters. Perhaps then an “informed” choice could be made, although as one digs deep it quickly becomes obvious that doing the wrong thing comes equally naturally to both republican and democratic administrations.

posted by Mike Watkins at March 13, 2005 02:38 PM #

Its even better than that, there’s some delicious irony. Jimmy Carter sold weapons to Indonesia during some of the fiercest slaughter. Ford at least has the excuse that they were hoping to get it over quickly. Carter of course must have been aware of what was going on there yet continued to send them weapons, as did all subsequent presidents. However, he is the only one that had the temerity to show up as an election monitor after East Timor’s independence.

The only reporter that bothered to ask him about this was Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!. She just happened to be one of the reporters that witnessed a 1991 massacre of 250 East Timorese at a funeral, during which she was beaten and her colleague Allan Nairn had his skull fractured.

posted by akb at March 13, 2005 06:32 PM #

The National Security Archive is an amazing resource and should be made required reading for all American voters. Perhaps then an “informed” choice could be made, although as one digs deep it quickly becomes obvious that doing the wrong thing comes equally naturally to both republican and democratic administrations.

The notion of “required reading for all voters” is the antithesis of democracy. You have to right to decide who is “informed enough” and who is not. It would be no more fair to require everyone to read the Bible, or Dianetics, or What Color Is My Parachute?

I don’t see any real point in raising awareness about particular events like this. A better goal would be to educate people as to the fact that politicians and government can never be trusted, that one must either maintain vigilence or accept things happening that they don’t agree with. Fuming over specific instances in history won’t prevent them in the future.

posted by nsa at March 13, 2005 07:45 PM #

Of course not, but the best way to teach people that government can’t be trusted is to give specific examples.

posted by Aaron Swartz at March 13, 2005 08:26 PM #

I don’t see any real point in raising awareness about particular events like this.

Yeah, there’s no point in knowing history or the truth of specific events. And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

A better goal would be to educate people as to the fact that politicians and government can never be trusted,

Oh yeah, that’s a far better solution - incite apathy and ignorance by implying that nothing is true, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Wouldn’t it be better to encourage people to learn the truth, and support people who tell the truth? By saying that no-one can be trusted, it says that nothing can be done.

In fact, there have been politicans in history who have been mostly honest and trustworthy. If you say that none can be trusted, or that they are all lying, then where is the incentive for politicians to be trustworthy or honest in the first place? They may as well lie.

posted by person at March 13, 2005 11:06 PM #

He didn’t say no one could be trusted, he said politicians can’t be trusted. That’s true and it’s important to understand if you want to fix things. (There are ways to fix things that don’t depend on trusting politicians; they’re much more effective.)

Where are these honest and trustworthy politicians you speak of? The incentives for a politician to lie, especially when the population trusts them, are way too powerful to easily overcome.

posted by Aaron Swartz at March 14, 2005 12:39 AM #

The notion of “required reading for all voters” is the antithesis of democracy.

That’s why I think pure democracy is a bad idea. :-) Besides, of course, requiring one to read the Bible without simultaneously requiring one to read the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible — that isn’t “informing”, that’s just bigotry.

Where can I get Dianetics literature for free?

posted by bi at March 14, 2005 02:34 AM #

He didn’t say no one could be trusted, he said politicians can’t be trusted. That’s true and it’s important to understand if you want to fix things.

Of course it’s true if you consider it an absurd case of “trusting politicians” as a whole. You should give trust to individuals, not categories of individuals.

Politicians are people, like you and me. Are people capable of being trustworthy? If so, then why can’t a person who is a politician also be trustworthy?

Where are these honest and trustworthy politicians you speak of?

Well, Bob Brown, leader of the Australian greens is a good example. i would also say that Jenny Macklin and Barry Jones are also very forthright and informed, and have not done anything untrustworthy, to my knowledge. Even Gough Whitlam’s actions tipped him onto the side of trustworthiness rather than untrustworthiness. Although you probably wouldn’t know of these people.

I don’t know enough about the details of US politicians, but have people like Thomas Jefferson done anything to deserve distrust? Making mistakes is not the same as being untrustworthy - everyone makes mistakes. Gandhi was a good person, although I don’t know anough about him to know if he ever betrayed the trust of his people.

If no politicians can be trusted, then doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t have a government? Is that what you are saying?

The incentives for a politician to lie, especially when the population trusts them, are way too powerful to easily overcome.

So remove those incentives. Some politicians are strong enough to overcome them - but unfortunately, they usually don’t succeed because of smear campaigns against them by crooked politicians and media.

posted by person at March 14, 2005 04:42 PM #

Are people capable of being trustworthy? If so, then why can’t a person who is a politician also be trustworthy?

Because politicians are funded on the basis of their dishonesty. I mean, an honest person can say he’s a politician and try running for something (I’m sure many do) but, in the US at least, you’re not going to win any significant post without funding and media coverage and you’re not going to get that if you’re telling the truth.

I like Thomas Jefferson, but he may be the exception that proves the rule — although there’s probably some dirt you can dig up regarding the Louisiana Purchase.

If no politicians can be trusted, then doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t have a government? Is that what you are saying?

I am an anarchist, yes. As the saying goes, “I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them. Unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.” Certainly anarchists have admitted there might be need for a bureaucracy of sorts, but they’ve designed some in ways that ensure they remain bottom-up and democratic.

But yeah, it does seem like the pattern of history that people with power assume they’re in power because they’re better than normal people, from that they conclude that they are right and if the people disagree the people are wrong, from that they decide they better keep the truth from the people, and so they lie.

This is sort of at the core of our government. As James Madison said, government is set up to protect the “minority of the opulent”† from the majority “who secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of life’s blessings”†.

posted by Aaron Swartz at March 14, 2005 05:40 PM #

Not sure if it’s wise to enter into a debate about the pros and cons of anarchism, but as Mike Huben said, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.”

But back to something important that nsa said: is there any point in knowing about the bad things the US did in your grandfather’s time? I think knowing about it is one thing. What’s more important is to think about why these things happened from a supposedly free country, and how to prevent these things from happening in the future. People who ignore history — even people who say “oh, those things happened so long ago, they’re irrelevant now” — are most likely to repeat it.

posted by bi at March 15, 2005 12:14 PM #

Because politicians are funded on the basis of their dishonesty.

ALL politicians? You mean, it’s impossible for this not to happen, anywhere in the world?

I mean, an honest person can say he’s a politician and try running for something (I’m sure many do)

Do you consider yourself trustworthy? If you decided to become a politician, would that make you suddenly untrustworthy?

you’re not going to win any significant post without funding and media coverage and you’re not going to get that if you’re telling the truth.

Lacking funding does not make you a not-politician, or not trustworthy, just a politician who is not funded.

And why couldn’t there be ways to fund politicians without having to indulge lies?

I like Thomas Jefferson, but he may be the exception that proves the rule

If he’s an exception, how does he prove the rule? If he was trustworthy, then logically not all politicians are untrustworthy.

I am an anarchist, yes. As the saying goes, “I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them.

Are you serious about that? You oppose all government, and all rule of law? If that’s the case, then why do you so often speak out in a liberal way against discrimination and whatnot?

If you are an anarchist, how can you support a group called “The Roosevelt Foundation” - named after someone famous for government intervention and social engineering?

This is sort of at the core of our government. As James Madison said, government is set up to protect the “minority of the opulent”† from the majority “who secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of life’s blessings

But how does that mean that anyone who gets involved in politics is untrustworthy?

posted by person at March 16, 2005 02:54 AM #

What’s more important is to think about why these things happened from a supposedly free country

That’s the whole myth right there. The idea that the US was ever “free” is quite absurd.

posted by person at March 16, 2005 02:56 AM #

Social processes aren’t monolithic — statements about large phenomena — any phenomena, really — obviously aren’t 100%. If I was trustworthy and I decided to become a politician then yes, you shouldn’t trust me anymore. Not because being an honest politician is impossible, just because it’s extremely unlikely, and it’s only reasonable to believe the most likely thing. (If other information comes up to make it more likely that I’m the rare honest politician, then obviously you should believe that.)

I think you misunderstand what anarchism is about. An anarchist opposes all forms of domination. The most important one for our society is not government, but capitalism and business. (I think government is typically seen as a side-effect of capitalism.) Anarchists usually support “government intervention” and “social engineering” in the economy because it’s one step closer to democracy and because it will create greater equality and less capitalism. Similarly, anarchists oppose discrimination, because it’s just another form of power. Anarchism, in this sense, is almost sort of just the logical consequence of being an honest and intelligent liberal.

posted by Aaron Swartz at March 16, 2005 06:49 PM #

Call it what you will, but as far as I am concerned, once a small (or not-so-small) group of people get to force others to do things or not to do things — whether for good or for bad — then they’re a government.

posted by bi at March 16, 2005 09:12 PM #

Well, some people never learn:

Totalitarians are perfectly capable of achieving power through democracy, then destroying it. … That is why it would be not just expedient but right to support undemocratic measures undertaken to avert a far more anti-democratic outcome. Democracy is not a suicide pact. —Krauthammer

Does anyone still not see how wrong this is?

posted by bi at March 20, 2005 01:51 AM #